linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and ioq0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8066e06c-90f4-c21b-e36f-89f6e8ca28c5@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:42:21 +0800
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     axboe@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, sagi@...mberg.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and ioq0

Hi Keith

Thanks for your kindly response and directive

On 02/28/2018 11:27 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:53:31AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> On 02/27/2018 11:13 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>>>> Currently, adminq and ioq0 share the same irq vector. This is
>>>> unfair for both amdinq and ioq0.
>>>>  - For adminq, its completion irq has to be bound on cpu0.
>>>>  - For ioq0, when the irq fires for io completion, the adminq irq
>>>>    action has to be checked also.
>>>
>>> This change log could use some improvements. Why is it bad if admin
>>> interrupts affinity is with cpu0?
>>
>> adminq interrupts should be able to fire everywhere.
>> do we have any reason to bound it on cpu0 ?
> 
> Your patch will have the admin vector CPU affinity mask set to
> 0xff..ff. The first set bit for an online CPU is the one the IRQ handler
> will run on, so the admin queue will still only run on CPU 0.

hmmm...yes.
When I test there is only one irq vector, I get following result:
 124:          0          0     253541          0          0          0          0          0  IR-PCI-MSI 1048576-edge      nvme0q0, nvme0q1

>  
>>> Are you able to measure _any_ performance difference on IO queue 1 vs IO
>>> queue 2 that you can attribute to IO queue 1's sharing vector 0?
>>
>> Actually, I didn't get any performance improving on my own NVMe card.
>> But it may be needed on some enterprise card, especially the media is persist memory.
>> nvme_irq will be invoked twice when ioq0 irq fires, this will introduce another unnecessary DMA
>> accessing on cq entry.
> 
> A CPU reading its own memory isn't a DMA. It's just a cheap memory read.

Oh sorry, my bad, I mean it is operation on DMA address, it is uncached.
nvme_irq
  -> nvme_process_cq
    -> nvme_read_cqe
      -> nvme_cqe_valid

static inline bool nvme_cqe_valid(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, u16 head,
		u16 phase)
{
	return (le16_to_cpu(nvmeq->cqes[head].status) & 1) == phase;
}

Sincerely
Jianchao