Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce per-task io utilization boost

[Bart Van Assche]

On 3/5/24 01:13, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 05/03/2024 00:20, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 3/4/24 12:16, Christian Loehle wrote:
> > > - Higher cap is not always beneficial, we might place the task away
> > > from the CPU where the interrupt handler is running, making it run
> > > on an unboosted CPU which may have a bigger impact than the difference
> > > between the CPU's capacity the task moved to. (Of course the boost will
> > > then be reverted again, but a ping-pong every interval is possible).
> >
> > In the above I see "the interrupt handler". Does this mean that the NVMe
> > controller in the test setup only supports one completion interrupt for
> > all completion queues instead of one completion interrupt per completion
> > queue? There are already Android phones and developer boards available
> > that support the latter, namely the boards equipped with a UFSHCI 4.0 controller.
>
> No, both NVMe test setups have one completion interrupt per completion queue,
> so this caveat doesn't affect them, higher capacity CPU is strictly better.
> The UFS and both mmc setups (eMMC with CQE and sdcard) only have one completion
> interrupt (on CPU0 on my setup).

I think that measurements should be provided in the cover letter for the
two types of storage controllers: one series of measurements for a
storage controller with a single completion interrupt and a second
series of measurements for storage controllers with one completion
interrupt per CPU.

> FWIW you do gain an additional ~20% (in my specific setup) if you move the ufshcd
> interrupt to a big CPU, too. Similarly for the mmc.
> Unfortunately the infrastructure is far from being there for the scheduler to move the
> interrupt to the same performance domain as the task, which is often optimal both in
> terms of throughput and in terms of power.
> I'll go looking for a stable testing platform with UFS as you mentioned, benefits of this
> patch will of course be greatly increased.

I'm not sure whether making the completion interrupt follow the workload
is a good solution. I'm concerned that this would increase energy
consumption by keeping the big cores active longer than necessary. I
like this solution better (improves storage performance on at least
devices with a UFSHCI 3.0 controller): "[PATCH v2 0/2] sched: blk:
Handle HMP systems when completing IO"
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20240223155749.2958009-1-qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx/).

Thanks,

Bart.