linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Allow complete locally if capacities are different

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: <7661afec-168d-406e-903b-a2dc9adf6408@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:26:47 +0100
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
 Manish Pandey <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com, quic_bhaskarv@...cinc.com,
 quic_narepall@...cinc.com, quic_rampraka@...cinc.com, quic_cang@...cinc.com,
 quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Allow complete locally if capacities are
 different

On 8/28/24 13:13, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/28/24 7:49 AM, Manish Pandey wrote:
>> 'Commit af550e4c9682 ("block/blk-mq: Don't complete locally if
>> capacities are different")' enforces to complete the request locally
>> only if the submission and completion CPUs have same capacity.
>>
>> To have optimal IO load balancing or to avoid contention b/w submission
>> path and completion path, user may need to complete IO request of large
>> capacity CPU(s) on Small Capacity CPU(s) or vice versa.
>>
>> Hence introduce a QUEUE_FLAG_ALLOW_DIFF_CAPACITY blk queue flag to let
>> user decide if it wants to complete the request locally or need an IPI
>> even if the capacity of the requesting and completion queue is different.
>> This gives flexibility to user to choose best CPU for their completion
>> to give best performance for their system.

Why have the flag be
QUEUE_FLAG_ALLOW_DIFF_CAPACITY
instead of just
QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_LLC
so it isn't as HMP specifically-worded?
(And of course then having QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP be strictly
stronger than QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_LLC. On !HMP they are equal.)
That would also answer Bart's question below how this is
different to rq_affinity=0.

> 
> I think that the following is missing from the above description:
> - Mentioning that this is for an unusual interrupt routing technology
>   (SoC sends the interrupt to another CPU core than what has been
>    specified in the smp_affinity mask).

FWIW on !mcq that doesn't have to be the case.

> - An explanation why the desired effect cannot be achieved by changing
>   rq_affinity into 0.
> 
>>   block/blk-mq-debugfs.c |  1 +
>>   block/blk-mq.c         |  3 ++-
>>   block/blk-sysfs.c      | 12 ++++++++++--
>>   include/linux/blkdev.h |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Since the semantics of a sysfs attribute are modified,
> Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block should be updated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
>