Re: [PATCH v4 12/13] blk-mq: Use shared tags for shared sbitmap support

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

On 24/09/2021 11:39, John Garry wrote:
> + Kashyap
> 
> On 24/09/2021 11:23, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 9/24/21 10:28 AM, John Garry wrote:
>>> Currently we use separate sbitmap pairs and active_queues atomic_t for
>>> shared sbitmap support.
>>>
>>> However a full sets of static requests are used per HW queue, which is
>>> quite wasteful, considering that the total number of requests usable at
>>> any given time across all HW queues is limited by the shared sbitmap 
>>> depth.
>>>
>>> As such, it is considerably more memory efficient in the case of shared
>>> sbitmap to allocate a set of static rqs per tag set or request queue, 
>>> and
>>> not per HW queue.
>>>
>>> So replace the sbitmap pairs and active_queues atomic_t with a shared
>>> tags per tagset and request queue, which will hold a set of shared 
>>> static
>>> rqs.
>>>
>>> Since there is now no valid HW queue index to be passed to the 
>>> blk_mq_ops
>>> .init and .exit_request callbacks, pass an invalid index token. This
>>> changes the semantics of the APIs, such that the callback would need to
>>> validate the HW queue index before using it. Currently no user of shared
>>> sbitmap actually uses the HW queue index (as would be expected).
>>>
>>> Continue to use term "shared sbitmap" for now, as the meaning is known.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   block/blk-mq-sched.c   | 82 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>   block/blk-mq-tag.c     | 61 ++++++++++------------------
>>>   block/blk-mq-tag.h     |  6 +--
>>>   block/blk-mq.c         | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>   block/blk-mq.h         |  5 ++-
>>>   include/linux/blk-mq.h | 15 ++++---
>>>   include/linux/blkdev.h |  3 +-
>>>   7 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)
>>>
>> The overall idea to keep the full request allocation per queue was to 
>> ensure memory locality for the requests themselves.
>> When moving to a shared request structure we obviously loose that 
>> feature.
>>
>> But I'm not sure if that matters here; the performance impact might be 
>> too small to be measurable, seeing that we'll be most likely bound by 
>> hardware latencies anyway.
>>
>> Nevertheless: have you tested for performance regressions with this 
>> patchset?
> 
> I have tested relatively lower rates, like ~450K IOPS, without any 
> noticeable regression.
> 
>> I'm especially thinking of Kashyaps high-IOPS megaraid setup; if there 
>> is a performance impact that'll be likely scenario where we can 
>> measure it.
>>
> 
> I can test higher rates, like 2M IOPS, when I get access to the HW.
> 
> @Kashyap, Any chance you can help test performance here?
> 
>> But even if there is a performance impact this patchset might be 
>> worthwhile, seeing that it'll reduce the memory footprint massively.
> 
> Sure, I don't think that minor performance improvements can justify the 
> excessive memory.
> 

JFYI, with 6x SAS SSDs on my arm64 board, I see:

Before (5.15-rc2 baseline):
none: 445K IOPs, mq-deadline: 418K IOPs (fio read)

After:
none: 442K IOPs, mq-deadline: 407K IOPs (fio read)

So only a marginal drop there for mq-deadline.

I'll try my 12x SAS SSD setup when I get a chance. Kashyap is kindly 
also testing.

Thanks