From: Jan Karcher <jaka@linux.ibm.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:24:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <492ada12-4e46-bb45-bc4b-1962e4530764@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62001adc-129a-d477-c916-7a4cf2000553@linux.alibaba.com>
On 20.10.2022 09:00, D. Wythe wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Sorry for the long delay, The main purpose of v3 is to put optimizes
> also works on SMC-D, dues to the environment,
> I can only tests it in SMC-R, so please help us to verify the stability
> and functional in SMC-D,
> Thanks a lot.
>
> If you have any problems, please let us know.
>
> Besides, PATCH bug fixes need to be reordered. After the code review
> passes and the SMC-D test goes stable, I will adjust it
> in next serial.
Hi D. Wythe,
no problem and thank you. I'm going to test your changes and let you
know as soon as I'm done.
- Jan
>
>
> On 10/20/22 2:43 PM, D.Wythe wrote:
>> From: "D.Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections,
>> mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix exceptions
>> that
>> occur after thoses optimization.
>>
>> According to Off-CPU graph, SMC worker's off-CPU as that:
>>
>> smc_close_passive_work (1.09%)
>> smcr_buf_unuse (1.08%)
>> smc_llc_flow_initiate (1.02%)
>>
>> smc_listen_work (48.17%)
>> __mutex_lock.isra.11 (47.96%)
>>
>>
>> An ideal SMC-R connection process should only block on the IO events
>> of the network, but it's quite clear that the SMC-R connection now is
>> queued on the lock most of the time.
>>
>> The goal of this patchset is to achieve our ideal situation where
>> network IO events are blocked for the majority of the connection
>> lifetime.
>>
>> There are three big locks here:
>>
>> 1. smc_client_lgr_pending & smc_server_lgr_pending
>>
>> 2. llc_conf_mutex
>>
>> 3. rmbs_lock & sndbufs_lock
>>
>> And an implementation issue:
>>
>> 1. confirm/delete rkey msg can't be sent concurrently while
>> protocol allows indeed.
>>
>> Unfortunately,The above problems together affect the parallelism of
>> SMC-R connection. If any of them are not solved. our goal cannot
>> be achieved.
>>
>> After this patch set, we can get a quite ideal off-CPU graph as
>> following:
>>
>> smc_close_passive_work (41.58%)
>> smcr_buf_unuse (41.57%)
>> smc_llc_do_delete_rkey (41.57%)
>>
>> smc_listen_work (39.10%)
>> smc_clc_wait_msg (13.18%)
>> tcp_recvmsg_locked (13.18)
>> smc_listen_find_device (25.87%)
>> smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs (25.87%)
>> smc_llc_do_confirm_rkey (25.87%)
>>
>> We can see that most of the waiting times are waiting for network IO
>> events. This also has a certain performance improvement on our
>> short-lived conenction wrk/nginx benchmark test:
>>
>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>> |conns/qps |c4 | c8 | c16 | c32 | c64 | c200 |
>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>> |SMC-R before |9.7k | 10k | 10k | 9.9k | 9.1k | 8.9k |
>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>> |SMC-R now |13k | 19k | 18k | 16k | 15k | 12k |
>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>> |TCP |15k | 35k | 51k | 80k | 100k | 162k |
>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>
>> The reason why the benefit is not obvious after the number of connections
>> has increased dues to workqueue. If we try to change workqueue to
>> UNBOUND,
>> we can obtain at least 4-5 times performance improvement, reach up to
>> half
>> of TCP. However, this is not an elegant solution, the optimization of it
>> will be much more complicated. But in any case, we will submit relevant
>> optimization patches as soon as possible.
>>
>> Please note that the premise here is that the lock related problem
>> must be solved first, otherwise, no matter how we optimize the workqueue,
>> there won't be much improvement.
>>
>> Because there are a lot of related changes to the code, if you have
>> any questions or suggestions, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks
>> D. Wythe
>>
>> v1 -> v2:
>>
>> 1. Fix panic in SMC-D scenario
>> 2. Fix lnkc related hashfn calculation exception, caused by operator
>> priority
>> 3. Only wake up one connection if the lnk is not active
>> 4. Delete obsolete unlock logic in smc_listen_work()
>> 5. PATCH format, do Reverse Christmas tree
>> 6. PATCH format, change all xxx_lnk_xxx function to xxx_link_xxx
>> 7. PATCH format, add correct fix tag for the patches for fixes.
>> 8. PATCH format, fix some spelling error
>> 9. PATCH format, rename slow to do_slow
>>
>> v2 -> v3:
>>
>> 1. add SMC-D support, remove the concept of link cluster since SMC-D has
>> no link at all. Replace it by lgr decision maker, who provides
>> suggestions
>> to SMC-D and SMC-R on whether to create new link group.
>>
>> 2. Fix the corruption problem described by PATCH 'fix application
>> data exception' on SMC-D.
>>
>> D. Wythe (10):
>> net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and
>> smc_server_lgr_pending
>> net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending
>> net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex
>> net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently
>> net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore
>> net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in
>> smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse()
>> net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs()
>> net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore
>> net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected
>> smc_llc_srv_add_link()
>> net/smc: fix application data exception
>>
>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 70 ++++----
>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 478
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> net/smc/smc_core.h | 36 +++-
>> net/smc/smc_llc.c | 277 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> net/smc/smc_llc.h | 6 +
>> net/smc/smc_wr.c | 10 --
>> net/smc/smc_wr.h | 10 ++
>> 7 files changed, 712 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-20 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-20 6:43 [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 01/10] net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 02/10] net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 03/10] net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 04/10] net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 05/10] net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 06/10] net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse() D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 07/10] net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs() D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 08/10] net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 09/10] net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected smc_llc_srv_add_link() D.Wythe
2022-10-20 6:43 ` [PATCH net-next v3 10/10] net/smc: fix application data exception D.Wythe
2022-10-20 7:00 ` [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections D. Wythe
2022-10-20 7:24 ` Jan Karcher [this message]
2022-10-21 11:57 ` Jan Karcher
2022-10-21 15:57 ` D. Wythe
2022-10-24 13:10 ` Jan Karcher
2022-10-25 6:13 ` Tony Lu
2022-10-26 13:12 ` Jan Karcher
2022-10-28 5:29 ` Tony Lu
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=492ada12-4e46-bb45-bc4b-1962e4530764@linux.ibm.com \
--to=jaka@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).