public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dylan Yudaken <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, Dylan Yudaken <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH RFC for-next 0/8] io_uring: tw contention improvments
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:18:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)

Task work currently uses a spin lock to guard task_list and
task_running. Some use cases such as networking can trigger task_work_add
from multiple threads all at once, which suffers from contention here.

This can be changed to use a lockless list which seems to have better
performance. Running the micro benchmark in [1] I see 20% improvment in
multithreaded task work add. It required removing the priority tw list
optimisation, however it isn't clear how important that optimisation is.
Additionally it has fairly easy to break semantics.

Patch 1-2 remove the priority tw list optimisation
Patch 3-5 add lockless lists for task work
Patch 6 fixes a bug I noticed in io_uring event tracing
Patch 7-8 adds tracing for task_work_run

Dylan Yudaken (8):
  io_uring: remove priority tw list optimisation
  io_uring: remove __io_req_task_work_add
  io_uring: lockless task list
  io_uring: introduce llist helpers
  io_uring: batch task_work
  io_uring: move io_uring_get_opcode out of TP_printk
  io_uring: add trace event for running task work
  io_uring: trace task_work_run

 include/linux/io_uring_types.h  |   2 +-
 include/trace/events/io_uring.h |  72 +++++++++++++--
 io_uring/io_uring.c             | 150 ++++++++++++--------------------
 io_uring/io_uring.h             |   1 -
 io_uring/rw.c                   |   2 +-
 io_uring/tctx.c                 |   4 +-
 io_uring/tctx.h                 |   7 +-
 7 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)


base-commit: 094abe8fbccb0d79bef982c67eb7372e92452c0e
-- 
2.30.2



             reply	other threads:[~2022-06-20 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-20 16:18 Dylan Yudaken [this message]
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 1/8] io_uring: remove priority tw list optimisation Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 2/8] io_uring: remove __io_req_task_work_add Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 3/8] io_uring: lockless task list Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 4/8] io_uring: introduce llist helpers Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 5/8] io_uring: batch task_work Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 6/8] io_uring: move io_uring_get_opcode out of TP_printk Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:19 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 7/8] io_uring: add trace event for running task work Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:19 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 8/8] io_uring: trace task_work_run Dylan Yudaken

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox