Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and ioq0
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Cc:     axboe@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me
References: <1519721177-2099-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <20180227151311.GD10832@localhost.localdomain>
 <9252f0a1-f3e5-414b-db49-e8053dfa48a6@oracle.com>
 <20180228152741.GA16002@localhost.localdomain>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <8066e06c-90f4-c21b-e36f-89f6e8ca28c5@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:42:21 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180228152741.GA16002@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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