diff mbox series

[RFT,3/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags

Message ID 1635852455-39935-4-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for shared tags | expand

Commit Message

John Garry Nov. 2, 2021, 11:27 a.m. UTC 
Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].

Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.

Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
all HW queues.

Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.

Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
different implementation.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-mq-tag.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

Comments

Hannes Reinecke Nov. 28, 2021, 10:43 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 11/2/21 12:27 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
> using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].
> 
> Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
> than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
> yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.
> 
> Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
> parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
> bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
> accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
> all HW queues.
> 
> Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
> shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
> relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.
> 
> Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
> different implementation.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-mq-tag.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

Cheers,

Hannes
Ming Lei Nov. 29, 2021, 2:19 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 07:27:35PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Kashyap reports high CPU usage in blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() and callees
> using megaraid SAS RAID card since moving to shared tags [0].
> 
> Previously, when shared tags was shared sbitmap, this function was less
> than optimum since we would iter through all tags for all hctx's,
> yet only ever match upto tagset depth number of rqs.
> 
> Since the change to shared tags, things are even less efficient if we have
> parallel callers of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(). This is because in
> bt_iter() -> blk_mq_find_and_get_req() there would be more contention on
> accessing each request ref and tags->lock since they are now shared among
> all HW queues.
> 
> Optimise by having separate calls to bt_for_each() for when we're using
> shared tags. In this case no longer pass a hctx, as it is no longer
> relevant, and teach bt_iter() about this.
> 
> Ming suggested something along the lines of this change, apart from a
> different implementation.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/e4e92abbe9d52bcba6b8cc6c91c442cc@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>

Looks fine,

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>


Thanks,
Ming
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index bc233ea92adf..00515933c8a8 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -215,6 +215,7 @@  void blk_mq_put_tags(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, int *tag_array, int nr_tags)
 
 struct bt_iter_data {
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
+	struct request_queue *q;
 	busy_tag_iter_fn *fn;
 	void *data;
 	bool reserved;
@@ -238,11 +239,18 @@  static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 {
 	struct bt_iter_data *iter_data = data;
 	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = iter_data->hctx;
-	struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
+	struct request_queue *q = iter_data->q;
 	bool reserved = iter_data->reserved;
+	struct blk_mq_tag_set *set = q->tag_set;
+	struct blk_mq_tags *tags;
 	struct request *rq;
 	bool ret = true;
 
+	if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(set->flags))
+		tags = set->shared_tags;
+	else
+		tags = hctx->tags;
+
 	if (!reserved)
 		bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags;
 	/*
@@ -253,7 +261,7 @@  static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 	if (!rq)
 		return true;
 
-	if (rq->q == hctx->queue && rq->mq_hctx == hctx)
+	if (rq->q == q && (!hctx || rq->mq_hctx == hctx))
 		ret = iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
 	blk_mq_put_rq_ref(rq);
 	return ret;
@@ -274,13 +282,15 @@  static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
  *		bitmap_tags member of struct blk_mq_tags.
  */
 static void bt_for_each(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct sbitmap_queue *bt,
-			busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved)
+			busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *data, bool reserved,
+			struct request_queue *q)
 {
 	struct bt_iter_data iter_data = {
 		.hctx = hctx,
 		.fn = fn,
 		.data = data,
 		.reserved = reserved,
+		.q = q,
 	};
 
 	sbitmap_for_each_set(&bt->sb, bt_iter, &iter_data);
@@ -460,9 +470,6 @@  EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_wait_completed_request);
 void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 		void *priv)
 {
-	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
-	int i;
-
 	/*
 	 * __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues() updates nr_hw_queues and queue_hw_ctx
 	 * while the queue is frozen. So we can use q_usage_counter to avoid
@@ -471,19 +478,30 @@  void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct request_queue *q, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
 	if (!percpu_ref_tryget(&q->q_usage_counter))
 		return;
 
-	queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
-		struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
-
-		/*
-		 * If no software queues are currently mapped to this
-		 * hardware queue, there's nothing to check
-		 */
-		if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(hctx))
-			continue;
+	if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(q->tag_set->flags)) {
+		struct blk_mq_tags *tags = q->tag_set->shared_tags;
 
 		if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
-			bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true);
-		bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false);
+			bt_for_each(NULL, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true, q);
+		bt_for_each(NULL, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, q);
+	} else {
+		struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
+		int i;
+
+		queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
+			struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
+
+			/*
+			 * If no software queues are currently mapped to this
+			 * hardware queue, there's nothing to check
+			 */
+			if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(hctx))
+				continue;
+
+			if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
+				bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true, q);
+			bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, q);
+		}
 	}
 	blk_queue_exit(q);
 }