From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Buffered IO async context overhead
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:31:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi,
On 2020-02-14 13:13:35 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/14/20 12:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > which I think is pretty clear evidence we're hitting fairly significant
> > contention on the queue lock.
> >
> >
> > I am hitting this in postgres originally, not fio, but I thought it's
> > easier to reproduce this way. There's obviously benefit to doing things
> > in the background - but it requires odd logic around deciding when to
> > use io_uring, and when not.
> >
> > To be clear, none of this happens with DIO, but I don't forsee switching
> > to DIO for all IO by default ever (too high demands on accurate
> > configuration).
>
> Can you try with this added?
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 76cbf474c184..207daf83f209 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ static const struct io_op_def io_op_defs[] = {
> .async_ctx = 1,
> .needs_mm = 1,
> .needs_file = 1,
> + .hash_reg_file = 1,
> .unbound_nonreg_file = 1,
> },
> [IORING_OP_WRITEV] = {
> @@ -634,6 +635,7 @@ static const struct io_op_def io_op_defs[] = {
> },
> [IORING_OP_READ_FIXED] = {
> .needs_file = 1,
> + .hash_reg_file = 1,
> .unbound_nonreg_file = 1,
> },
> [IORING_OP_WRITE_FIXED] = {
> @@ -711,11 +713,13 @@ static const struct io_op_def io_op_defs[] = {
> [IORING_OP_READ] = {
> .needs_mm = 1,
> .needs_file = 1,
> + .hash_reg_file = 1,
> .unbound_nonreg_file = 1,
> },
> [IORING_OP_WRITE] = {
> .needs_mm = 1,
> .needs_file = 1,
> + .hash_reg_file = 1,
> .unbound_nonreg_file = 1,
> },
> [IORING_OP_FADVISE] = {
> @@ -955,7 +959,7 @@ static inline bool io_prep_async_work(struct io_kiocb *req,
> bool do_hashed = false;
>
> if (req->flags & REQ_F_ISREG) {
> - if (def->hash_reg_file)
> + if (!(req->kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT) && def->hash_reg_file)
> do_hashed = true;
> } else {
> if (def->unbound_nonreg_file)
I can (will do Sunday, on the road till then). But I'm a bit doubtful
it'll help. This is using WRITEV after all, and I only see a single
worker?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-14 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-14 19:50 Buffered IO async context overhead Andres Freund
2020-02-14 20:13 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 20:31 ` Andres Freund [this message]
2020-02-14 20:49 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 9:35 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 20:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-09 20:41 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 21:02 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-09 21:29 ` Jens Axboe
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] \
/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