Message-ID: <CAK=zhgoWeeTyrCFmve_rj7Ki4mhGq1WTr3ZYTB4o_1yCo8i0Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:48:39 +0530
From:   Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>
To:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@....com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "irqbalance@...ts.infradead.org" <irqbalance@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
        Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        Chaitra Basappa <chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com>,
        Suganath Prabu Subramani 
        <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Observing Softlockup's while running heavy IOs

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:12:40AM +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:30:04AM +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:52:37PM +0530, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Bart Van Assche
>> >> >> <bart.vanassche@...disk.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On 09/01/2016 03:31 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I reduced the ISR workload by one third in-order to reduce the time
>> >> >> >> that is spent per CPU in interrupt context, even then I am observing
>> >> >> >> softlockups.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As I mentioned before only same single CPU in the set of CPUs(enabled
>> >> >> >> in affinity_hint) is busy with handling the interrupts from
>> >> >> >> corresponding IRQx. I have done below experiment in driver to limit
>> >> >> >> these softlockups/hardlockups. But I am not sure whether it is
>> >> >> >> reasonable to do this in driver,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Experiment:
>> >> >> >> If the CPUx is continuously busy with handling the remote CPUs
>> >> >> >> (enabled in the corresponding IRQ's affinity_hint) IO works by 1/4th
>> >> >> >> of the HBA queue depth in the same ISR context then enable a flag
>> >> >> >> called 'change_smp_affinity' for this IRQ. Also created a thread with
>> >> >> >> will poll for this flag for every IRQ's (enabled by driver) for every
>> >> >> >> second. If this thread see that this flag is enabled for any IRQ then
>> >> >> >> it will write next CPU number from the CPUs enabled in the IRQ's
>> >> >> >> affinity_hint to the IRQ's smp_affinity procfs attribute using
>> >> >> >> 'call_usermodehelper()' API.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This to make sure that interrupts are not processed by same single CPU
>> >> >> >> all the time and to make the other CPUs to handle the interrupts if
>> >> >> >> the current CPU is continuously busy with handling the other CPUs IO
>> >> >> >> interrupts.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> For example consider a system which has 8 logical CPUs and one MSIx
>> >> >> >> vector enabled (called IRQ 120) in driver, HBA queue depth as 8K.
>> >> >> >> then IRQ's procfs attributes will be
>> >> >> >> IRQ# 120, affinity_hint=0xff, smp_affinity=0x00
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> After starting heavy IOs, we will observe that only CPU0 will be busy
>> >> >> >> with handling the interrupts. This experiment driver will change the
>> >> >> >> smp_affinity to next CPU number i.e. 0x01 (using cmd 'echo 0x01 >
>> >> >> >> /proc/irq/120/smp_affinity', driver issue's this cmd using
>> >> >> >> call_usermodehelper() API) if it observes that CPU0 is continuously
>> >> >> >> processing more than 2K of IOs replies of other CPUs i.e from CPU1 to
>> >> >> >> CPU7.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Whether doing this kind of stuff in driver is ok?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hello Sreekanth,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To me this sounds like something that should be implemented in the I/O
>> >> >> > chipset on the motherboard. If you have a look at the Intel Software
>> >> >> > Developer Manuals then you will see that logical destination mode supports
>> >> >> > round-robin interrupt delivery. However, the Linux kernel selects physical
>> >> >> > destination mode on systems with more than eight logical CPUs (see also
>> >> >> > arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not sure the maintainers of the interrupt subsystem would welcome code
>> >> >> > that emulates round-robin interrupt delivery. So your best option is
>> >> >> > probably to minimize the amount of work that is done in interrupt context
>> >> >> > and to move as much work as possible out of interrupt context in such a way
>> >> >> > that it can be spread over multiple CPU cores, e.g. by using
>> >> >> > queue_work_on().
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bart.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bart,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks a lot for providing lot of inputs and valuable information on this issue.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Today I got one more observation. i.e. I am not observing any lockups
>> >> >> if I use 1.0.4-6 versioned irqbalance.
>> >> >> Since this versioned irqbalance is able to shift the load to other CPU
>> >> >> when one CPU is heavily loaded.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > This isn't happening because irqbalance is no longer able to shift load between
>> >> > cpus, its happening because of commit 996ee2cf7a4d10454de68ac4978adb5cf22850f8.
>> >> > irqs with higher interrupt volumes sould be balanced to a specific cpu core,
>> >> > rather than to a cache domain to maximize cpu-local cache hit rates.  Prior to
>> >> > that change we balanced to a cache domain and your workload didn't have to
>> >> > serialize multiple interrupts to a single core.  My suggestion to you is to use
>> >> > the --policyscript option to make your storage irqs get balanced to the cache
>> >> > level, rather than the core level.  That should return the behavior to what you
>> >> > want.
>> >> >
>> >> > Neil
>> >>
>> >> Hi Neil,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for reply.
>> >>
>> >> Today I tried with setting balance_level to 'cache' for mpt3sas driver
>> >> IRQ's using below policy script and used 1.0.9 versioned irqbalance,
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> #!/bin/bash
>> >> # Header
>> >> # Linux Shell Scripting for Irq Balance Policy select for mpt3sas driver
>> >> #
>> >>
>> >> # Command Line Args
>> >>  #IRQ_PATH    -> PATH
>> >>  #IRQ_NUMBER     -> IRQ Number
>> >> declare -r IRQ_PATH=$1
>> >> declare -r IRQ_NUMBER=$2
>> >>
>> >> if [ -d /proc/irq/$IRQ_NUMBER ]; then
>> >>         mpt3sas_irq=(`ls /proc/irq/$IRQ_NUMBER/ | grep mpt3sas | wc -l`)
>> >>         if [ $mpt3sas_irq == 1 ]; then
>> >>             echo "hintpolicy=subset"
>> >>             echo "balance_level=cache"
>> >>     fi
>> >> fi
>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> But still I don't see any load shift happening between the CPUs and
>> >> still observing hardlockups.
>> >>
>> >> Here I have attached the irqbalance logs.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Sreekanth
>> >
>> > Hey there-
>> >         So, looking at your logs, your script is working correctly:
>> > Package 0:  numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 0003f03f (load 0)
>> >         Cache domain 0:  numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00001001  (load 0)
>> >                 CPU number 0  numa_node is 0 (load 0)
>> >                   Interrupt 150 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 174 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 198 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 126 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 102 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 77 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                 CPU number 12  numa_node is 0 (load 0)
>> >                   Interrupt 138 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 162 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 186 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 114 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 90 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 65 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >           Interrupt 51 node_num is -1 (storage/1)
>> >           Interrupt 31 node_num is 0 (legacy/1)
>> > ...
>> > Package 1:  numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00fc0fc0 (load 0)
>> >         Cache domain 6:  numa_node is 0 cpu mask is 00040040  (load 0)
>> >                 CPU number 6  numa_node is 0 (load 0)
>> >                   Interrupt 149 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 173 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 197 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 125 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 101 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 76 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                 CPU number 18  numa_node is 0 (load 0)
>> >                   Interrupt 137 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 161 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 185 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 113 node_num is 0 (storage/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 89 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >                   Interrupt 64 node_num is 0 (ethernet/1)
>> >           Interrupt 50 node_num is -1 (storage/1)
>> >
>> >
>> > irqbalance correctly decided to balance irqs 50 and 51 to the cache level, which
>> > is good. The only other thing I would check though is the affinity_hint those
>> > irqs are exporting.  With an affinity hint set to subset, if the exported hint
>> > only intersects the cache domain cpu set at one cpu, you will still only get
>> > affinity for that one cpu.  You may want to consider changing the hintpolicy for
>> > those interrupts to ignore, to ensure that you have affinity for two cpus.
>>
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> I changed the hint policy to ignore for these IRQs but still I observe
>> only one CPU
>> is busy with interrupt processing and eventually I am observe softlockups.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sreekanth
>>
>
> Then it seems that something else is going on.  If you cat
> /proc/irq/50/smp_affinity to confirm that your affinity mask has at least 2 cpus
> set, then the only reason you would be getting irqs processed on only one cpu is
> because the highest priority cpu in hardware (usually the lowest numbered one),
> is free to handle the irq every time its asserted.

Yes Neil, I have observed that two CPU's are enabled in smp_affinity for IRQ#50
through 'cat /proc/irq/50/smp_affinity' command output.

Thanks,
Sreekanth
>
> Neil
>
>> >
>> > Beyond that though, the kernel is in control of irq delivery.  Normally the
>> > configured hardware delivery policy is to select the highest priority cpu that
>> > isn't already servicing an interrupt (to maximize cache hit rates).  If the irq
>> > rate is sufficiently slow however, it will always hit the same cpu, because it
>> > isn't blocked by another interrupt.
>> >
>> > Best
>> > Neil
>> >
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists