[PATCH] nvme: don't set a virt_boundary unless needed

[Max Gurtovoy]

On 25/12/2023 12:44, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/25/23 12:36, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25/12/2023 12:08, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/22/23 03:16, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21/12/2023 11:30, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NVMe PRPs are a pain and force the expensive virt_boundary 
>>>>>> checking on
>>>>>> block layer, prevent secure passthrough and require scatter/gather 
>>>>>> I/O
>>>>>> to be split into multiple commands which is problematic for the 
>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>> atomic write support.
>>>>>
>>>>> But is the threshold still correct? meaning for I/Os small enough the
>>>>> device will have lower performance? I'm not advocating that we keep 
>>>>> it,
>>>>> but we should at least mention the tradeoff in the change log.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix the NVMe core to require an opt-in from the drivers for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For nvme-apple it is always required as the driver only supports 
>>>>>> PRPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For nvme-pci when SGLs are supported we'll always use them for 
>>>>>> data I/O
>>>>>> that would require a virt_boundary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For nvme-rdma the virt boundary is always required, as RMDA MRs 
>>>>>> are just
>>>>>> as dumb as NVMe PRPs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is actually device dependent. The driver can ask for a pool of
>>>>> mrs with type IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS if the device supports 
>>>>> IBK_SG_GAPS_REG.
>>>>>
>>>>> See from ib_srp.c:
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>         if (device->attrs.kernel_cap_flags & IBK_SG_GAPS_REG)
>>>>>                  mr_type = IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS;
>>>>>          else
>>>>>                  mr_type = IB_MR_TYPE_MEM_REG;
>>>>
>>>> For now, I prefer not using the IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS MR in NVMe/RDMA 
>>>> since in the case of virtual contiguous data buffers it is better to 
>>>> use IB_MR_TYPE_MEM_REG. It gives much better performance. This is 
>>>> the reason I didn't add IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS MR support for NVMe/RDMA.
>>>
>>> I see. I guess it is not *that* trivial then.
>>>
>>>> I actually had a plan to re-write the IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS MR logic 
>>>> (or create a new MR type) that will internally open 2 MRs so if the 
>>>> IO is contiguous it will use the MTT/MEM_REG and if it isn't it will 
>>>> use the KLM/SG_GAPS.
>>>> This is how we implemented the SIG_MR but still didn't make it for 
>>>> the IB_MR_TYPE_SG_GAPS MR.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a reasonable option. But doesn't think mean that the
>>> driver will need to scan the page scatterlist to determine what internal
>>> mr to use? Even a fallback mechanism can be affected by a given
>>> workload. Plus there is the cost of doubling the number of preallocated
>>> mrs.
>>>
>>
>> Scanning the scatterlist is done anyway for mapping purposes so I 
>> don't think it will affect the performance.
>> The cost of doubling the number of MRs is the what we need to pay to 
>> get optimal performance for contig and discontig IOs, I guess..
>>
>>>> Actually, I think we should have the same logic in the NVMe PCI driver:
>>>> if the IOs can be delivered as PRPs then the driver will prepare SQE 
>>>> with PRP. Otherwise, driver will prepare SGL.
>>>> I think that doing the check in the driver for each IO is not so bad 
>>>> and devices will get benefit from it. Usually HW devices like to 
>>>> work with contiguous buffers. If the buffers can't be mapped with 
>>>> PRPs, then the HW will work a bit harder and use SGLs (it is better 
>>>> than doing a bounce buffer in the block layer).
>>>>
>>>> I actually did a POC internally for NVMe/RDMA and created sg_gaps 
>>>> ib_mr and mem_reg ib_mr and checked the buffers mapping for each IO 
>>>> and got a big benefit if the buffers were discontig (used the 
>>>> sg_gaps mr). Also the contig buffers performance didn't degraded 
>>>> because of the check of the buffers mapping.
>>>>
>>>> I created a fio flags that in purpose sends discontig IOs for my 
>>>> testing.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> Sounds possible. However for rdma we probably want this transparent to
>>> the ulp such that all consumers can have this benefit. Also perhaps add
>>> this logic in the rdma core so other drivers can use it as well
>>> (although I don't know if any other rdma driver supports sg gaps
>>> anyways).
>>>
>>> If this proves to be a good approach, pci can do something similar.
>>
>> For RDMA, I plan to do it in the device driver (mlx5) layer and not 
>> the ib_core layer. It is unique to our implementation.
> 
> Well, SG_GAPS is not intended to be a unique capability (although it is
> today in practice I guess).

The uniqueness I meant is to use 2 MRs/Mkeys to implement it. Maybe 
there are devices that can do it in a single MR/mkey.

> 
>>
>> For the NVMe PCI case, I suggested doing it unrelated to the NVMe/RDMA 
>> solution. The NVMe/PCI is actually the device driver of the PCI device 
>> and the scanning of the scatterlist should happen in the device driver.
>> I suggest to try this solution since we always debating about 
>> thresholds and when to use SGLs.
>> Now that Christoph opens the gate for the driver to work with 
>> discontig IOs I believe that for *any* discontig IO we should use SGLs 
>> and for *any* contig IO we should use PRPs.
> 
> Why *any* contig IO? There are certainly cases where sgls would perform
> better with sgls than prps I'd assume... For example if a large buffer
> is physically contiguous (say a huge page)?

Yup, PRP is limited to MPS..

There probably should be some capability added to NVMe Spec to help 
drivers to decide the optimal IO PSDT to use.

So I guess we can say for now:
if scatterlist is discontig or data_size > sgl_threshold - use sgls
else use PRPs