Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176353-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: Sat, 11 May 2024 08:59:17 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme-pci: allow unmanaged interrupts
Message-ID: <Zj7C5fPCAdGwGsrI@fedora>
References: <20240510141459.3207725-1-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510141459.3207725-2-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510151047.GA10486@lst.de>
 <Zj5JMqWRY187PqnD@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <Zj6yvTxIpUnOXl7R@fedora>
 <Zj6-1sXvUNZWO1pB@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zj6-1sXvUNZWO1pB@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:41:58PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 07:50:21AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:20:02AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 07:14:59AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > > From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some people _really_ want to control their interrupt affinity.
> > > > 
> > > > So let them argue why.  I'd rather have a really, really, really
> > > > good argument for this crap, and I'd like to hear it from the horses
> > > > mouth.
> > > 
> > > It's just prioritizing predictable user task scheduling for a subset of
> > > CPUs instead of having consistently better storage performance.
> > > 
> > > We already have "isolcpus=managed_irq," parameter to prevent managed
> > > interrupts from running on a subset of CPUs, so the use case is already
> > > kind of supported. The problem with that parameter is it is a no-op if
> > > the starting affinity spread contains only isolated CPUs.
> > 
> > Can you explain a bit why it is a no-op? If only isolated CPUs are
> > spread on one queue, there will be no IO originated from these isolated
> > CPUs, that is exactly what the isolation needs.
> 
> The "isolcpus=managed_irq," option doesn't limit the dispatching CPUs.

Please see commit a46c27026da1 ("blk-mq: don't schedule block kworker on isolated CPUs")
in for-6.10/block.

> It only limits where the managed irq will assign the effective_cpus as a
> best effort.

Most of times it does work.

> 
> Example, I boot with a system with 4 threads, one nvme device, and
> kernel parameter:
> 
>   isolcpus=managed_irq,2-3
> 
> Run this:
> 
>   for i in $(seq 0 3); do taskset -c $i dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1000 iflag=direct; done

It is one test problem, when you try to isolate '2-3', it isn't expected
to submit IO or run application on these isolated CPUs.


Thanks, 
Ming