[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180313104452.GA8782@ming.t460p>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:45:00 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc: keith.busch@...el.com, axboe@...com, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and
ioq1
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:58:08PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> Currently, adminq and ioq1 share the same irq vector which is set
> affinity to cpu0. If a system allows cpu0 to be offlined, the adminq
> will not be able work any more.
>
> To fix this, assign separate irq vectors for adminq and ioq1. Set
> .pre_vectors == 1 when allocate irq vectors, then assign the first
> one to adminq which will have affinity cpumask with all possible
> cpus. On the other hand, if controller has only legacy or single
> -message MSI, we will setup adminq and 1 ioq and let them share
> the only one irq vector.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
> ---
> V2->V3
> - change changelog based on Ming's insights
> - some cleanup based on Andy's suggestions
>
> V1->V2
> - add case to handle the scenario where there is only one irq
> vector
> - add nvme_ioq_vector to map ioq vector and qid
>
> drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> index b6f43b7..47c33f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct nvme_dev {
> struct dma_pool *prp_small_pool;
> unsigned online_queues;
> unsigned max_qid;
> + unsigned int num_vecs;
> int q_depth;
> u32 db_stride;
> void __iomem *bar;
> @@ -139,6 +140,17 @@ static inline struct nvme_dev *to_nvme_dev(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl)
> return container_of(ctrl, struct nvme_dev, ctrl);
> }
>
> +static inline unsigned int nvme_ioq_vector(struct nvme_dev *dev,
> + unsigned int qid)
> +{
> + /*
> + * If controller has only legacy or single-message MSI, there will
> + * be only 1 irq vector. At the moment, we setup adminq + 1 ioq
> + * and let them share irq vector.
> + */
> + return (dev->num_vecs == 1) ? 0 : qid;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * An NVM Express queue. Each device has at least two (one for admin
> * commands and one for I/O commands).
> @@ -1457,7 +1469,7 @@ static int nvme_create_queue(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, int qid)
> nvmeq->sq_cmds_io = dev->cmb + offset;
> }
>
> - nvmeq->cq_vector = qid - 1;
> + nvmeq->cq_vector = nvme_ioq_vector(dev, qid);
> result = adapter_alloc_cq(dev, qid, nvmeq);
> if (result < 0)
> goto release_vector;
> @@ -1628,11 +1640,12 @@ static int nvme_create_io_queues(struct nvme_dev *dev)
> {
> unsigned i, max;
> int ret = 0;
> + int vec;
>
> for (i = dev->ctrl.queue_count; i <= dev->max_qid; i++) {
> - /* vector == qid - 1, match nvme_create_queue */
> + vec = nvme_ioq_vector(dev, i);
> if (nvme_alloc_queue(dev, i, dev->q_depth,
> - pci_irq_get_node(to_pci_dev(dev->dev), i - 1))) {
> + pci_irq_get_node(to_pci_dev(dev->dev), vec))) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> break;
> }
> @@ -1913,6 +1926,8 @@ static int nvme_setup_io_queues(struct nvme_dev *dev)
> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev->dev);
> int result, nr_io_queues;
> unsigned long size;
> + struct irq_affinity affd = {.pre_vectors = 1};
> + int ret;
>
> nr_io_queues = num_possible_cpus();
> result = nvme_set_queue_count(&dev->ctrl, &nr_io_queues);
> @@ -1949,11 +1964,12 @@ static int nvme_setup_io_queues(struct nvme_dev *dev)
> * setting up the full range we need.
> */
> pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
> - nr_io_queues = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, nr_io_queues,
> - PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES | PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY);
> - if (nr_io_queues <= 0)
> + ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity(pdev, 1, (nr_io_queues + 1),
> + PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES | PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY, &affd);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> return -EIO;
> - dev->max_qid = nr_io_queues;
> + dev->num_vecs = ret;
> + dev->max_qid = max(ret - 1, 1);
>
> /*
> * Should investigate if there's a performance win from allocating
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists