Re: [PATCH linux-next 1/2] irq: Add CPU mask affinity hint callbackframework

From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr
Date: Thu Apr 22 2010 - 08:11:19 EST


On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:01 -0700, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
This patch adds a callback function pointer to the irq_desc
structure, along with a registration function and a read-only
proc entry for each interrupt.

This affinity_hint handle for each interrupt can be used by
underlying drivers that need a better mechanism to control
interrupt affinity. The underlying driver can register a
callback for the interrupt, which will allow the driver to
provide the CPU mask for the interrupt to anything that
requests it. The intent is to extend the userspace daemon,
irqbalance, to help hint to it a preferred CPU mask to balance
the interrupt into.

Doesn't it make more sense to have the driver follow affinity decisions
made from user-space? I realise that reallocating queues is disruptive
and we probably don't want irqbalance to trigger that, but there should
be a mechanism for the administrator to trigger it.

The driver here would be assisting userspace (irqbalance) to provide better details how the HW is laid out with respect to flows. As it stands today, irqbalance is almost guaranteed to move interrups to CPUs that are not aligned with where applications are running for network adapters. This is very apparent when running at speeds in the 10 Gigabit range, or even multiple 1 Gigabit ports running at the same time.


Looking at your patch for ixgbe:

[...]
diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
index 1b1419c..3e00d41 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
[...]
@@ -1083,6 +1113,16 @@ static void ixgbe_configure_msix(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
q_vector->eitr = adapter->rx_eitr_param;

ixgbe_write_eitr(q_vector);
+
+ /*
+ * Allocate the affinity_hint cpumask, assign the mask for
+ * this vector, and register our affinity_hint callback.
+ */
+ alloc_cpumask_var(&q_vector->affinity_mask, GFP_KERNEL);
+ cpumask_set_cpu(v_idx, q_vector->affinity_mask);
+ irq_register_affinity_hint(adapter->msix_entries[v_idx].vector,
+ adapter,
+ &ixgbe_irq_affinity_callback);
}

if (adapter->hw.mac.type == ixgbe_mac_82598EB)
[...]

This just assigns IRQs to the first n CPU threads. Depending on the
enumeration order, this might result in assigning an IRQ to each of 2
threads on a core while leaving other cores unused!

This ixgbe patch is only meant to be an example of how you could use it. I didn't hammer out all the corner cases of interrupt alignment in it yet. However, ixgbe is already aligning Tx flows onto the CPU/queue pair the Tx occurred (i.e. Tx session from CPU 4 will be queued on Tx queue 4), and then uses our Flow Director HW offload to steer Rx to Rx queue 4, assuming that the interrupt for Rx queue 4 is affinitized to CPU 4. The flow alignment breaks when the IRQ affinity has no knowledge what the underlying set of vectors are bound to, and what mode the HW is running in.

FCoE offloads that spread multiple SCSI exchange IDs across CPU cores also needs this to properly align things. John Fastabend is going to provide some examples where this is very useful in the FCoE case.

irqbalance can already find the various IRQs associated with a single
net device by looking at the handler names. So it can do at least as
well as this without such a hint. Unless drivers have *useful* hints to
give, I don't see the point in adding this mechanism.

irqbalance identifies which interrupts go with which network device. But it has no clue about flow management, and often will make a decision that hurts performance scaling. I have data showing when scaling multiple 10 Gigabit ports (4 in the current test), I can gain an extra 10 Gigabits of throughput just by aligning the interrupts properly (go from ~58 Gbps to ~68 Gbps in bi-directional tests).

I do have the patches for irqbalance that uses this new handle to make better decisions for devices implementing the mask. I can send those to help show the whole picture of what's happening.

Appreciate the feedback though Ben.

Cheers,
-PJ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/