From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE65CC433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:39:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E41239FD for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:39:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 02E41239FD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CrFTg50F2zDqnZ for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:39:03 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=tyreld@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=IinELtBz; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CrFRn68dpzDqgL for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:37:24 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B8MW9Ec106166; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 17:37:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=ny4BGtsIDYCNJGw0eK1XWCj9RE2kutEusQjjkUxM/bI=; b=IinELtBzPOnmbSaQjLmMTQ2kyaiigWd0K10ApwnaRlH393m2M1dp/t2naYJGkv1U6+xn DYMIMZCbGpbpoa/3zjdQtFOu8P36Ox+/VMZigz3Y3PnR58sgLk69ULde7zqTs3CL/cD1 Yo4H+Fau5H7gy8BzSuYJA+eI02P2/faWO6EQTNd6XLKzHzm3jeQBubQPZsvXJ5zaxSbv dYqRB+bryeS4qOxT//+Zqw7gJ4MQRHDmQpPlJHa8yDVTEFqd6rboMQtDo3rpq2Px7c+e 13Jsuw7Jb7+tnGdaQKdyqBblzUfbIvqEBPbDJAUpBfFpxhixEAnJ87deuBAK5jHuKTCt hg== Received: from ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (b.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.11]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35ajbng5br-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 08 Dec 2020 17:37:21 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B8MWO9T029588; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:37:20 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3581u99pss-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 08 Dec 2020 22:37:20 +0000 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0B8MbJRi28049680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:37:20 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4B8112079; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:37:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2347811207A; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:37:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc6857751186.ibm.com (unknown [9.65.215.138]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:37:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] ibmvfc: add vhost fields and defaults for MQ enablement To: Hannes Reinecke , Brian King , james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com References: <20201202005329.4538-1-tyreld@linux.ibm.com> <20201202005329.4538-2-tyreld@linux.ibm.com> <38903a4f-9253-0b4b-6f67-af78ec86175f@linux.ibm.com> <6ce79011-d288-7a49-3d51-262da58d8486@suse.de> From: Tyrel Datwyler Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:37:16 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6ce79011-d288-7a49-3d51-262da58d8486@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-08_15:2020-12-08, 2020-12-08 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012080137 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: brking@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 12/7/20 3:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 12/4/20 3:26 PM, Brian King wrote: >> On 12/2/20 11:27 AM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: >>> On 12/2/20 7:14 AM, Brian King wrote: >>>> On 12/1/20 6:53 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: >>>>> Introduce several new vhost fields for managing MQ state of the adapter >>>>> as well as initial defaults for MQ enablement. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler >>>>> --- >>>>>   drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c |  9 ++++++++- >>>>>   drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.h | 13 +++++++++++-- >>>>>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c >>>>> index 42e4d35e0d35..f1d677a7423d 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c >>>>> @@ -5161,12 +5161,13 @@ static int ibmvfc_probe(struct vio_dev *vdev, const >>>>> struct vio_device_id *id) >>>>>       } >>>>>         shost->transportt = ibmvfc_transport_template; >>>>> -    shost->can_queue = max_requests; >>>>> +    shost->can_queue = (max_requests / IBMVFC_SCSI_HW_QUEUES); >>>> >>>> This doesn't look right. can_queue is the SCSI host queue depth, not the MQ >>>> queue depth. >>> >>> Our max_requests is the total number commands allowed across all queues. From >>> what I understand is can_queue is the total number of commands in flight allowed >>> for each hw queue. >>> >>>          /* >>>           * In scsi-mq mode, the number of hardware queues supported by the LLD. >>>           * >>>           * Note: it is assumed that each hardware queue has a queue depth of >>>           * can_queue. In other words, the total queue depth per host >>>           * is nr_hw_queues * can_queue. However, for when host_tagset is set, >>>           * the total queue depth is can_queue. >>>           */ >>> >>> We currently don't use the host wide shared tagset. >> >> Ok. I missed that bit... In that case, since we allocate by default only 100 >> event structs. If we slice that across IBMVFC_SCSI_HW_QUEUES (16) queues, then >> we end up with only about 6 commands that can be outstanding per queue, >> which is going to really hurt performance... I'd suggest bumping up >> IBMVFC_MAX_REQUESTS_DEFAULT from 100 to 1000 as a starting point. >> > Before doing that I'd rather use the host-wide shared tagset. > Increasing the number of requests will increase the memory footprint of the > driver (as each request will be statically allocated). > In the case where we use host-wide how do I determine the queue depth per hardware queue? Is is hypothetically can_queue or is it (can_queue / nr_hw_queues)? We want to allocate an event pool per-queue which made sense without host-wide tags since the queue depth per hw queue is exactly can_queue. -Tyrel