lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU with flooded interrupts
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 12:27:18AM +0000, Long Li wrote:
> >>>Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU
> >>>with flooded interrupts
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:33:38AM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > From: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > When a NVMe hardware queue is mapped to several CPU queues, it is
> >>>> > possible that the CPU this hardware queue is bound to is flooded by
> >>>> > returning I/O for other CPUs.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > For example, consider the following scenario:
> >>>> > 1. CPU 0, 1, 2 and 3 share the same hardware queue 2. the hardware
> >>>> > queue interrupts CPU 0 for I/O response 3. processes from CPU 1, 2
> >>>> > and 3 keep sending I/Os
> >>>> >
> >>>> > CPU 0 may be flooded with interrupts from NVMe device that are I/O
> >>>> > responses for CPU 1, 2 and 3. Under heavy I/O load, it is possible
> >>>> > that CPU 0 spends all the time serving NVMe and other system
> >>>> > interrupts, but doesn't have a chance to run in process context.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > To fix this, CPU 0 can schedule a work to complete the I/O request
> >>>> > when it detects the scheduler is not making progress. This serves
> >>>multiple purposes:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 1. This CPU has to be scheduled to complete the request. The other
> >>>> > CPUs can't issue more I/Os until some previous I/Os are completed.
> >>>> > This helps this CPU get out of NVMe interrupts.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 2. This acts a throttling mechanisum for NVMe devices, in that it
> >>>> > can not starve a CPU while servicing I/Os from other CPUs.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 3. This CPU can make progress on RCU and other work items on its
> >>>queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is indeed real, but this is the wrong approach in my mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> We already have irqpoll which takes care proper budgeting polling
> >>>> cycles and not hogging the cpu.
> >>>
> >>>The issue isn't unique to NVMe, and can be any fast devices which
> >>>interrupts CPU too frequently, meantime the interrupt/softirq handler may
> >>>take a bit much time, then CPU is easy to be lockup by the interrupt/sofirq
> >>>handler, especially in case that multiple submission CPUs vs. single
> >>>completion CPU.
> >>>
> >>>Some SCSI devices has the same problem too.
> >>>
> >>>Could we consider to add one generic mechanism to cover this kind of
> >>>problem?
> >>>
> >>>One approach I thought of is to allocate one backup thread for handling such
> >>>interrupt, which can be marked as IRQF_BACKUP_THREAD by drivers.
> >>>
> >>>Inside do_IRQ(), irqtime is accounted, before calling action->handler(),
> >>>check if this CPU has taken too long time for handling IRQ(interrupt or
> >>>softirq) and see if this CPU could be lock up. If yes, wakeup the backup
>
> How do you know if this CPU is spending all the time in do_IRQ()?
>
> Is it something like:
> If (IRQ_time /elapsed_time > a threshold value)
> wake up the backup thread

Yeah, the above could work in theory.

Another approach I thought of is to monitor average irq gap time on each
CPU.

We could use EWMA(Exponential Weighted Moving Average) to do it simply,
such as:

curr_irq_gap(cpu) = current start time of do_IRQ() on 'cpu' -
end time of last do_IRQ() on 'cpu'
avg_irq_gap(cpu) = weight_prev * avg_irq_gap(cpu) + weight_curr * curr_irq_gap(cpu)

note:
weight_prev + weight_curr = 1

When avg_irq_gap(cpu) is close to one small enough threshold, we think irq flood is
detected.

'weight_prev' could be chosen as one big enough value for avoiding short-time flood.


Thanks,
Ming

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-24 14:57    [W:0.059 / U:10.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site