From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] task_put batching
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:18:56 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 19/07/2020 21:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/19/20 5:15 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 18/07/2020 17:37, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 7/18/20 2:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> For my a bit exaggerated test case perf continues to show high CPU
>>>> cosumption by io_dismantle(), and so calling it io_iopoll_complete().
>>>> Even though the patch doesn't yield throughput increase for my setup,
>>>> probably because the effect is hidden behind polling, but it definitely
>>>> improves relative percentage. And the difference should only grow with
>>>> increasing number of CPUs. Another reason to have this is that atomics
>>>> may affect other parallel tasks (e.g. which doesn't use io_uring)
>>>>
>>>> before:
>>>> io_iopoll_complete: 5.29%
>>>> io_dismantle_req: 2.16%
>>>>
>>>> after:
>>>> io_iopoll_complete: 3.39%
>>>> io_dismantle_req: 0.465%
>>>
>>> Still not seeing a win here, but it's clean and it _should_ work. For
>>
>> Well, if this thing is useful, it'd be hard to quantify, because active
>> polling would hide it. I think, it'd need to apply a lot of isolated
>
> It should be very visible in my setup, as we're CPU limited, not device
> limited. Hence it makes it very easy to show CPU gains, as they directly
> translate into improved performance.
IIRC, atomics for x64 in a single thread don't hurt too much. Disregarding
this patch, it would be good to have a many-threaded benchmark to look
after scalability.
>> pressure on cache synchronisation (e.g. spam with barriers), or try to
>> create and measure an atomic heavy task pinned to another core. Don't
>> worth the effort IMHO.
>> `
>> Just out of curiosity, let me ask how do you test it?
>> - is it a VM?
>> - how many cores and threads do you use?
>> - how many io_uring instances you have? Per thread?
>> - Is it all goes to a single NVMe SSD?
>
> It's not a VM, it's a normal box. I'm using just one CPU, one thread,
> and just one NVMe device. That's my goto test for seeing if we reclaimed
> some CPU cycles.
Got it, thanks
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-20 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-18 8:32 [PATCH 0/2] task_put batching Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18 8:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] tasks: add put_task_struct_many() Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18 8:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: batch put_task_struct() Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18 14:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] task_put batching Jens Axboe
2020-07-19 11:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-19 18:49 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-20 14:18 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-07-20 15:22 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-20 15:49 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-20 16:06 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-20 16:11 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-20 16:42 ` Pavel Begunkov
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] \
/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