>>>Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU
>>>with flooded interrupts
>>>
>>>On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:14:29PM -0700, lon...@linuxonhyperv.com
>>>wrote:
>>>> From: Long Li <lon...@microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> When a NVMe hardware queue is mapped to several CPU queues, it is
>>>> possible that the CPU this hardware queue is bound to is flooded by
>>>> returning I/O for other CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> For example, consider the following scenario:
>>>> 1. CPU 0, 1, 2 and 3 share the same hardware queue 2. the hardware
>>>> queue interrupts CPU 0 for I/O response 3. processes from CPU 1, 2 and
>>>> 3 keep sending I/Os
>>>>
>>>> CPU 0 may be flooded with interrupts from NVMe device that are I/O
>>>> responses for CPU 1, 2 and 3. Under heavy I/O load, it is possible
>>>> that CPU 0 spends all the time serving NVMe and other system
>>>> interrupts, but doesn't have a chance to run in process context.
>>>
>>>Ideally -- and there is some code to affect this, the load-balancer will move
>>>tasks away from this CPU.
>>>
>>>> To fix this, CPU 0 can schedule a work to complete the I/O request
>>>> when it detects the scheduler is not making progress. This serves multiple
>>>purposes:
>>>
>>>Suppose the task waiting for the IO completion is a RT task, and you've just
>>>queued it to a regular work. This is an instant priority inversion.
This is a choice. We can either not "lock up" the CPU, or finish the I/O on
time from IRQ handler. I think throttling only happens in extreme conditions,
which is rare. The purpose is to make the whole system responsive and happy.
>>>
>>>> 1. This CPU has to be scheduled to complete the request. The other
>>>> CPUs can't issue more I/Os until some previous I/Os are completed.
>>>> This helps this CPU get out of NVMe interrupts.
>>>>
>>>> 2. This acts a throttling mechanisum for NVMe devices, in that it can
>>>> not starve a CPU while servicing I/Os from other CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> 3. This CPU can make progress on RCU and other work items on its queue.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Long Li <lon...@microsoft.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 57
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> drivers/nvme/host/nvme.h | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>>WTH does this live in the NVME driver? Surely something like this should be
>>>in the block layer. I'm thinking there's fiber channel connected storage that
>>>should be able to trigger much the same issues.
Yes this can be done in block layer. I'm not sure the best way to accomplish
this so implemented a NVMe patch to help test. The test results are promising
in that we are getting 99.5% of performance while avoided CPU lockup. The
challenge is to find a way to throttle a fast storage device.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c index
>>>> 6a9dd68c0f4f..576bb6fce293 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>>>
>>>> @@ -260,9 +270,54 @@ static void nvme_retry_req(struct request *req)
>>>> blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list(req->q, delay); }
>>>>
>>>> +static void nvme_complete_rq_work(struct work_struct *work) {
>>>> + struct nvme_request *nvme_rq =
>>>> + container_of(work, struct nvme_request, work);
>>>> + struct request *req = blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(nvme_rq);
>>>> +
>>>> + nvme_complete_rq(req);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> void nvme_complete_rq(struct request *req) {
>>>> - blk_status_t status = nvme_error_status(req);
>>>> + blk_status_t status;
>>>> + int cpu;
>>>> + u64 switches;
>>>> + struct nvme_request *nvme_rq;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!in_interrupt())
>>>> + goto skip_check;
>>>> +
>>>> + nvme_rq = nvme_req(req);
>>>> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>>> + if (idle_cpu(cpu))
>>>> + goto skip_check;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Check if this CPU is flooded with interrupts */
>>>> + switches = get_cpu_rq_switches(cpu);
>>>> + if (this_cpu_read(last_switch) == switches) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If this CPU hasn't made a context switch in
>>>> + * MAX_SCHED_TIMEOUT ns (and it's not idle), schedule a
>>>work to
>>>> + * complete this I/O. This forces this CPU run non-interrupt
>>>> + * code and throttle the other CPU issuing the I/O
>>>> + */
>>>
>>>What if there was only a single task on that CPU? Then we'd never
>>>need/want to context switch in the first place.
>>>
>>>AFAICT all this is just a whole bunch of gruesome hacks piled on top one
>>>another.
>>>
>>>> + if (sched_clock() - this_cpu_read(last_clock)
>>>> + > MAX_SCHED_TIMEOUT) {
>>>> + INIT_WORK(&nvme_rq->work,
>>>nvme_complete_rq_work);
>>>> + schedule_work_on(cpu, &nvme_rq->work);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + this_cpu_write(last_switch, switches);
>>>> + this_cpu_write(last_clock, sched_clock());
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> +skip_check:
>>>
>>>Aside from everything else; this is just sodding poor coding style. What is
>>>wrong with something like:
>>>
>>> if (nvme_complete_throttle(...))
>>> return;
>>>
>>>> + status = nvme_error_status(req);
>>>>
>>>> trace_nvme_complete_rq(req);
>>>>
