Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-62852-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:10:00 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 Kernel <x86@kernel.org>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, iommu@lists.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@linutronix.de>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
 kvm@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Joerg Roedel
 <joro@8bytes.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov
 <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Paul Luse
 <paul.e.luse@intel.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Raj Ashok
 <ashok.raj@intel.com>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
 maz@kernel.org, seanjc@google.com, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
 jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, "Lantz, Philip" <philip.lantz@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Coalesced Interrupt Delivery with posted MSI
Message-ID: <20240212171000.253813ee@jacob-builder>
In-Reply-To: <2aa290eb-ec4b-43b1-87db-4df8ccbeaa37@kernel.dk>
References: <20240126234237.547278-1-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
	<051cf099-9ecf-4f5a-a3ac-ee2d63a62fa6@kernel.dk>
	<20240209094307.4e7eacd0@jacob-builder>
	<9285b29c-6556-46db-b0bb-7a85ad40d725@kernel.dk>
	<20240212102742.34e1e2c2@jacob-builder>
	<2aa290eb-ec4b-43b1-87db-4df8ccbeaa37@kernel.dk>
Organization: OTC
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Jens,

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:36:42 -0700, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:

> > For the record, here is my set up and performance data for 4 Samsung
> > disks. IOPS increased from 1.6M per disk to 2.1M. One difference I
> > noticed is that IRQ throughput is improved instead of reduction with
> > this patch on my setup. e.g. BEFORE: 185545/sec/vector 
> >      AFTER:  220128  
> 
> I'm surprised at the rates being that low, and if so, why the posted MSI
> makes a difference? Usually what I've seen for IRQ being slower than
> poll is if interrupt delivery is unreasonably slow on that architecture
> of machine. But ~200k/sec isn't that high at all.

Even at ~200k/sec, I am seeing around 75% ratio between posted interrupt
notification and MSIs. i.e. for every 4 MSIs, we save one CPU notification.
That might be where the savings come from.

I was expecting an even or reduction in CPU notifications but more MSI
throughput. Instead, Optane gets less MSIs/sec as your data shows.

Is it possible to get the interrupt coalescing ratio on your set up? ie.
PMN count in cat /proc/interrupts divided by total NVME MSIs.

Here is a summary of my testing on 4 Samsung Gen 5 drives:
test cases		IOPS*1000	ints/sec(MSI)*
=================================================
aio 			6348		182218
io_uring		6895		207932
aio w/ posted MSI	8295		185545
io_uring w/ post MSI	8811		220128
io_uring poll_queue	13000		0
================================================


Thanks,

Jacob