Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] s390/vfio-ap: store queue struct in hash table for quick access

Tony Krowiak
2020-04-28T22:30:41Z

On 4/28/20 6:57 AM, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
> On 28.04.20 12:07, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:48:58 -0400
>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/20 11:17 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:05:23 +0200
>>>> Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24.04.20 05:57, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:20:01 -0400
>>>>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather than looping over potentially 65535 objects, let's store the
>>>>>>> structures for caching information about queue devices bound to the
>>>>>>> vfio_ap device driver in a hash table keyed by APQN.
>>>>>> @Harald:
>>>>>> Would it make sense to make the efficient lookup of an apqueue base
>>>>>> on its APQN core AP functionality instead of each driver figuring it out
>>>>>> on it's own?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm not wrong the zcrypt device/driver(s) must the problem of
>>>>>> looking up a queue based on its APQN as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance struct ep11_cprb has a target_id filed
>>>>>> (arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/zcrypt.h).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Halil
>>>>> Hi Halil
>>>>>
>>>>> no, the zcrypt drivers don't have this problem. They build up their own device object which
>>>>> includes a pointer to the base ap device.
>>>> I'm a bit confused. Doesn't your code loop first trough the ap_card
>>>> objects to find the APID portion of the APQN, and then loop the queue
>>>> list of the matching card to find the right ap_queue object? Or did I
>>>> miss something? Isn't that what _zcrypt_send_ep11_cprb() does? Can you
>>>> point me to the code that avoids the lookup (by apqn) for zcrypt?
>>> The code you reference, _zcrypt_send_ep11_cprb(), does loop through
>>> each queue associated with each card, but it doesn't appear to be
>>> looking for
>>> a queue with a particular APQN. It appears to be looking for a queue
>>> meeting a specific set of conditions. At least that's my take after
>>> taking a very
>>> brief look at the code, so I'm not sure that applies here.
>>>
>> One of the possible conditions is that the APQN is in the targets array.
>> Please have another look at the code below, is_desired_ep11_queue()
>> and is_desired_ep11_card() do APQI and APID part of the check
>> respectively:
>>
>> for_each_zcrypt_card(zc) {
>> /* Check for online EP11 cards */
>> if (!zc->online || !(zc->card->functions & 0x04000000))
>> continue;
>> /* Check for user selected EP11 card */
>> if (targets &&
>> !is_desired_ep11_card(zc->card->id, target_num, targets))
>> continue;
>> /* check if device node has admission for this card */
>> if (!zcrypt_check_card(perms, zc->card->id))
>> continue;
>> /* get weight index of the card device */
>> weight = speed_idx_ep11(func_code) * zc->speed_rating[SECKEY];
>> if (zcrypt_card_compare(zc, pref_zc, weight, pref_weight))
>> continue;
>> for_each_zcrypt_queue(zq, zc) {
>> /* check if device is online and eligible */
>> if (!zq->online ||
>> !zq->ops->send_ep11_cprb ||
>> (targets &&
>> !is_desired_ep11_queue(zq->queue->qid,
>> target_num, targets)))
>>
>>
>> Yes the size of targets may or may not be 1 (example for size == 1 is
>> the invocation form ep11_cryptsingle()) and the respective costs
>> depend on the usual size of the array. Since the goal of the whole
>> exercise seems to be to pick a single queue, and we settle with the first
>> suitable (first not in the input array, but in our lists) that is
>> suitable, I assumed we wouldn't need many hashtable lookups.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Halil
> again, this is all code related to zcrypt card and queues and has nothing directly to do with ap queue and ap cards.
> If you want to have a look how this works for ap devices, have a look into the scan routines for the ap bus in ap_bus.c
> There you can find a bus_for_each_device() which would fit together with the right matching function for your needs.
> And this is exactly what Tony implemented in the first shot. However, as written I can provide something like that
> for you.
> One note for the improvement via hash list with the argument about the max 65535 objects.
> Think about a real big machine which has currently up to 30 crypto cards (z15 GA1.5) which when CEX7S are
> plugged appear as 60 crypto adapters and have up to 85 domains each. When all these crypto resources
> are assigned to one LPAR we end up in 60x85 = 5100 APQNs. Well, of course with a hash you can improve
> the linear search through an array or list but can you measure the performance gain and then compare this
> to the complexity.  ... just some thoughts about beautifying code ...

I set up a test case to compare searching using a hashtable verses using
a list.
I created both a hashtable and a list of 5100 objects. Each structure
had a single
APQN field. I then randomly searched both the hashtable and the list for
each APQN. The following table contains the result of 5 test runs. The
elapsed
times are in nanoseconds.

Test:                              List Search    Hashtable Search
------                              ----------- ----------------
Avg. Per APQN:             11651           81
Total per 5500 APQNs:  60164268     1085368

Avg. Per APQN:              10925           78
Total per 5500 APQNs:   56482780    1084590

Avg. Per APQN:              10190           80
Total per 5500 APQNs:   52714920    1123205

Avg. Per APQN:              8431             76
Total per 5500 APQNs:   43748838    1061414

Avg. Per APQN:              9678             75
Total per 5500 APQNs:   50103437    1044427
-----------------------------------------------
Per APQN Search Avg:   10175          78            Hashtable is 130
times faster
Total Search 5500 Avg:  52642848    1079800  Hashtable is 49 times faster

Note that the list search was just a straight search of an object in a
list, not
a device attached to a bus. I don't know if that would add time, but it
seems
that the savings using a hashtable are significant.

So I have two questions:

1. Would it make more sense to provide AP bus interfaces to search for
queue devices by APQN?

2. If so, shall we store the queue devices in a hashtable to make the
searches more efficient?

>>>> If you look at the new function of vfio_ap_get_queue(unsigned long apqn)
>>>> it basically about finding the queue based on the apqn, with the
>>>> difference that it is vfio specific.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Halil
>>>>
>>>>> However, this is not a big issue, as the ap_bus holds a list of ap_card objects and within each
>>>>> ap_card object there exists a list of ap_queues.
>>>>