From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] multiqueue and interrupt assignment
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:31:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56B0D9CF.1080001@suse.de> (raw)
Hi all,
here's another topic which I've hit during my performance tests:
How should interrupt affinity be handled with blk-multiqueue?
The problem is that the blk-multiqueue assumes a certain
CPU-to-queue mapping, _and_ the 'queue' in blk-mq syntax is actually
a submission/completion queue pair.
To achieve optimal performance one should set the interrupt affinity
for a given (hardware) queue to the matchine (blk-mq) queue.
But typically the interrupt affinity has to be set during HBA setup
ie way before any queues are allocated.
Which means we have three choices:
- outguess the blk-mq algorithm in the driver and set the
interrupt affinity during HBA setup
- Add some callbacks to coordinate interrupt affinity between
driver and blk-mq
- Defer it to manual assignment, but inferring the risk of
a suboptimal performance.
At LSF/MM I would like to have a discussion on how the interrupt
affinity should be handled for blk-mq, and whether a generic method
is possible or desirable.
Also there is the issue of certain drivers (eg lpfc) which normally
do interrupt affinity themselves, but disable it for multiqueue.
Which results in abysmal performance when comparing single queue
against multiqueue :-(
As a side note, what does blk-mq do if the interrupt affinity is
_deliberately_ set wrong? IE if the completions for one command
arrive on completely the wrong queue? Discard the completion? Move
it to the correct queue?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next reply other threads:[~2016-02-02 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-02 16:31 Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2016-02-02 18:23 ` [LSF/MM TOPIC] multiqueue and interrupt assignment Bart Van Assche
2016-02-03 12:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-02-03 13:13 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-02-03 13:32 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-02-03 15:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-03-03 7:59 ` Ming Lei
2016-02-02 18:45 ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56B0D9CF.1080001@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).