From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH v1] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 09:20:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
I observed poor performance of io_uring compared to synchronous IO. That
turns out to be caused by deeper CPU idle states entered with io_uring,
due to io_uring using plain schedule(), whereas synchronous IO uses
io_schedule().
The losses due to this are substantial. On my cascade lake workstation,
t/io_uring from the fio repository e.g. yields regressions between 20%
and 40% with the following command:
./t/io_uring -r 5 -X0 -d 1 -s 1 -c 1 -p 0 -S$use_sync -R 0 /mnt/t2/fio/write.0.0
This is repeatable with different filesystems, using raw block devices
and using different block devices.
Use io_schedule_prepare() / io_schedule_finish() in
io_cqring_wait_schedule() to address the difference.
After that using io_uring is on par or surpassing synchronous IO (using
registered files etc makes it reliably win, but arguably is a less fair
comparison).
There are other calls to schedule() in io_uring/, but none immediately
jump out to be similarly situated, so I did not touch them. Similarly,
it's possible that mutex_lock_io() should be used, but it's not clear if
there are cases where that matters.
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
---
io_uring/io_uring.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 3bca7a79efda..4661a39de716 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -2575,6 +2575,9 @@ int io_run_task_work_sig(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
struct io_wait_queue *iowq)
{
+ int ret;
+ int token;
+
if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(ctx->check_cq)))
return 1;
if (unlikely(!llist_empty(&ctx->work_llist)))
@@ -2585,11 +2588,20 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
return -EINTR;
if (unlikely(io_should_wake(iowq)))
return 0;
+
+ /*
+ * Use io_schedule_prepare/finish, so cpufreq can take into account
+ * that the task is waiting for IO - turns out to be important for low
+ * QD IO.
+ */
+ token = io_schedule_prepare();
+ ret = 0;
if (iowq->timeout == KTIME_MAX)
schedule();
else if (!schedule_hrtimeout(&iowq->timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
- return -ETIME;
- return 0;
+ ret = -ETIME;
+ io_schedule_finish(token);
+ return ret;
}
/*
--
2.38.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-07-07 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-07 16:20 Andres Freund [this message]
2023-07-07 17:11 ` [PATCH v1] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait Jens Axboe
2023-07-07 17:53 ` 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] \
[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