Message-ID: <3526d73b-a0cf-e9eb-383b-2ad917f3bcc2@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:55:30 +0100
From:   Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R
 connections



On 01.11.22 08:22, D. Wythe wrote:
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Our team conducted some code reviews over this, but unfortunately no 
> obvious problems were found. Hence
> we are waiting for Tony Lu's virtual SMC-D device to test, which is 
> expected to come in this week.  Before that,
> I wonder if your tests are running separately on separate PATCH? If so, 
> I would like to please you to test
> the first PATCH and the second PATCH together. I doubt that the problem 
> repaired by the second PATCH
> is the cause of this issues.
> 
> Best Wishes.
> D. Wythe
> 

Hi D. Wythe,

We did test the series of the patches as a whole. That would be great if 
you could use Tony's virtual device to test SMC-D. By the way, I'll put 
your patches in our CI, let's see if it can find something.

Best,
Wenjia
> 
> On 10/24/22 9:11 PM, Jan Karcher wrote:
>> Hi D. Wythe,
>>
>> I re-run the tests with your fix.
>> SMC-R works fine now. For SMC-D we still have the following problem. 
>> It is kind of the same as i reported in v2 but even weirder:
>>
>> smc stats:
>>
>> t8345011
>> SMC-D Connections Summary
>>    Total connections handled          2465
>> SMC-R Connections Summary
>>    Total connections handled           232
>>
>> t8345010
>> SMC-D Connections Summary
>>    Total connections handled          2290
>> SMC-R Connections Summary
>>    Total connections handled           231
>>
>>
>> smc linkgroups:
>>
>> t8345011
>> [root@...45011 ~]# smcr linkgroup
>> LG-ID    LG-Role  LG-Type  VLAN  #Conns  PNET-ID
>> 00000400 SERV     SYM         0       0  NET25
>> [root@...45011 ~]# smcd linkgroup
>> LG-ID    VLAN  #Conns  PNET-ID
>> 00000300    0      16  NET25
>>
>> t8345010
>> [root@...45010 tela-kernel]# smcr linkgroup
>> LG-ID    LG-Role  LG-Type  VLAN  #Conns  PNET-ID
>> 00000400 CLNT     SYM         0       0  NET25
>> [root@...45010 tela-kernel]# smcd linkgroup
>> LG-ID    VLAN  #Conns  PNET-ID
>> 00000300    0       1  NET25
>>
>>
>> smcss:
>>
>> t8345011
>> [root@...45011 ~]# smcss
>> State          UID   Inode   Local Address           Peer Address     
>> Intf Mode
>>
>> t8345010
>> [root@...45010 tela-kernel]# smcss
>> State          UID   Inode   Local Address           Peer Address     
>> Intf Mode
>>
>>
>> lsmod:
>>
>> t8345011
>> [root@...45011 ~]# lsmod | grep smc
>> smc                   225280  18 ism,smc_diag
>> t8345010
>> [root@...45010 tela-kernel]# lsmod | grep smc
>> smc                   225280  3 ism,smc_diag
>>
>> Also smc_dbg and netstat do not show any more information on this 
>> problem. We only see in the dmesg that the code seems to build up 
>> SMC-R linkgroups even tho we are running the SMC-D tests.
>> NOTE: we disabled the syncookies for the tests.
>>
>> dmesg:
>>
>> t8345011
>> smc-tests: test_smcapp_torture_test started
>> kernel: TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 22465. 
>> Dropping request.  Check SNMP counters.
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000401, peerid 
>> 00000401, ibdev mlx5_0, ibport 1
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SINGLE, pnetid NET25
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000402, peerid 
>> 00000402, ibdev mlx5_1, ibport 1
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SYMMETRIC, pnetid 
>> NET25
>>
>> t8345010
>> smc-tests: test_smcapp_torture_test started
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000401, peerid 
>> 00000401, ibdev mlx5_0, ibport 1
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SINGLE, pnetid NET25
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 link added: id 00000402, peerid 
>> 00000402, ibdev mlx5_1, ibport 1
>> kernel: smc: SMC-R lg 00000400 net 1 state changed: SYMMETRIC, pnetid 
>> NET25
>>
>> If this output does not help and if you want us to look deeper into it 
>> feel free to let us know and we can debug further.
>>
>> On 23/10/2022 14:43, D.Wythe wrote:
>>> From: "D.Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>
>>> This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R 
>>> connections,
>>> mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix exceptions 
>>> that
>>> occur after thoses optimization.
>>>
>>> According to Off-CPU graph, SMC worker's off-CPU as that:
>>>
>>> smc_close_passive_work                  (1.09%)
>>>          smcr_buf_unuse                  (1.08%)
>>>                  smc_llc_flow_initiate   (1.02%)
>>>
>>> smc_listen_work                         (48.17%)
>>>          __mutex_lock.isra.11            (47.96%)
>>>
>>>
>>> An ideal SMC-R connection process should only block on the IO events
>>> of the network, but it's quite clear that the SMC-R connection now is
>>> queued on the lock most of the time.
>>>
>>> The goal of this patchset is to achieve our ideal situation where
>>> network IO events are blocked for the majority of the connection 
>>> lifetime.
>>>
>>> There are three big locks here:
>>>
>>> 1. smc_client_lgr_pending & smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>
>>> 2. llc_conf_mutex
>>>
>>> 3. rmbs_lock & sndbufs_lock
>>>
>>> And an implementation issue:
>>>
>>> 1. confirm/delete rkey msg can't be sent concurrently while
>>> protocol allows indeed.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately,The above problems together affect the parallelism of
>>> SMC-R connection. If any of them are not solved. our goal cannot
>>> be achieved.
>>>
>>> After this patch set, we can get a quite ideal off-CPU graph as
>>> following:
>>>
>>> smc_close_passive_work                                  (41.58%)
>>>          smcr_buf_unuse                                  (41.57%)
>>>                  smc_llc_do_delete_rkey                  (41.57%)
>>>
>>> smc_listen_work                                         (39.10%)
>>>          smc_clc_wait_msg                                (13.18%)
>>>                  tcp_recvmsg_locked                      (13.18)
>>>          smc_listen_find_device                          (25.87%)
>>>                  smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs                       (25.87%)
>>>                          smc_llc_do_confirm_rkey         (25.87%)
>>>
>>> We can see that most of the waiting times are waiting for network IO
>>> events. This also has a certain performance improvement on our
>>> short-lived conenction wrk/nginx benchmark test:
>>>
>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>> |conns/qps     |c4    | c8   |  c16  |  c32   | c64  |  c200  |
>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>> |SMC-R before  |9.7k  | 10k  |  10k  |  9.9k  | 9.1k |  8.9k  |
>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>> |SMC-R now     |13k   | 19k  |  18k  |  16k   | 15k  |  12k   |
>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>> |TCP           |15k   | 35k  |  51k  |  80k   | 100k |  162k  |
>>> +--------------+------+------+-------+--------+------+--------+
>>>
>>> The reason why the benefit is not obvious after the number of 
>>> connections
>>> has increased dues to workqueue. If we try to change workqueue to 
>>> UNBOUND,
>>> we can obtain at least 4-5 times performance improvement, reach up to 
>>> half
>>> of TCP. However, this is not an elegant solution, the optimization of it
>>> will be much more complicated. But in any case, we will submit relevant
>>> optimization patches as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Please note that the premise here is that the lock related problem
>>> must be solved first, otherwise, no matter how we optimize the 
>>> workqueue,
>>> there won't be much improvement.
>>>
>>> Because there are a lot of related changes to the code, if you have
>>> any questions or suggestions, please let me know.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> D. Wythe
>>>
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>
>>> 1. Fix panic in SMC-D scenario
>>> 2. Fix lnkc related hashfn calculation exception, caused by operator
>>> priority
>>> 3. Only wake up one connection if the lnk is not active
>>> 4. Delete obsolete unlock logic in smc_listen_work()
>>> 5. PATCH format, do Reverse Christmas tree
>>> 6. PATCH format, change all xxx_lnk_xxx function to xxx_link_xxx
>>> 7. PATCH format, add correct fix tag for the patches for fixes.
>>> 8. PATCH format, fix some spelling error
>>> 9. PATCH format, rename slow to do_slow
>>>
>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>
>>> 1. add SMC-D support, remove the concept of link cluster since SMC-D has
>>> no link at all. Replace it by lgr decision maker, who provides 
>>> suggestions
>>> to SMC-D and SMC-R on whether to create new link group.
>>>
>>> 2. Fix the corruption problem described by PATCH 'fix application
>>> data exception' on SMC-D.
>>>
>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>
>>> 1. Fix panic caused by uninitialization map.
>>>
>>> D. Wythe (10):
>>>    net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and
>>>      smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>    net/smc: fix SMC_CLC_DECL_ERR_REGRMB without smc_server_lgr_pending
>>>    net/smc: allow confirm/delete rkey response deliver multiplex
>>>    net/smc: make SMC_LLC_FLOW_RKEY run concurrently
>>>    net/smc: llc_conf_mutex refactor, replace it with rw_semaphore
>>>    net/smc: use read semaphores to reduce unnecessary blocking in
>>>      smc_buf_create() & smcr_buf_unuse()
>>>    net/smc: reduce unnecessary blocking in smcr_lgr_reg_rmbs()
>>>    net/smc: replace mutex rmbs_lock and sndbufs_lock with rw_semaphore
>>>    net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected
>>>      smc_llc_srv_add_link()
>>>    net/smc: fix application data exception
>>>
>>>   net/smc/af_smc.c   |  70 ++++----
>>>   net/smc/smc_core.c | 478 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>   net/smc/smc_core.h |  36 +++-
>>>   net/smc/smc_llc.c  | 277 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>   net/smc/smc_llc.h  |   6 +
>>>   net/smc/smc_wr.c   |  10 --
>>>   net/smc/smc_wr.h   |  10 ++
>>>   7 files changed, 712 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists