public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Phil Elwell <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	LKML <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], stable <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:48:58 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMEGJJ2RxopfNQ7GNLhr7X9=bHXKo+G5OOe0LUq=+UgLXsv1Xg@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/23 9:35?AM, Phil Elwell wrote:
> Hi Andres,
> 
> With this commit applied to the 6.1 and later kernels (others not
> tested) the iowait time ("wa" field in top) in an ARM64 build running
> on a 4 core CPU (a Raspberry Pi 4 B) increases to 25%, as if one core
> is permanently blocked on I/O. The change can be observed after
> installing mariadb-server (no configuration or use is required). After
> reverting just this commit, "wa" drops to zero again.

There are a few other threads on this...

> I can believe that this change hasn't negatively affected performance,
> but the result is misleading. I also think it's pushing the boundaries
> of what a back-port to stable should do.

It's just a cosmetic thing, to be fair, and it makes quite a large
difference on important cases. This is why it also went to stable, which
btw was not Andres's decision at all. I've posted this patch in another
thread as well, but here it is in this thread too - this will limit the
cases that are marked as iowait.


diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 89a611541bc4..f4591b912ea8 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -2493,11 +2493,20 @@ int io_run_task_work_sig(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static bool current_pending_io(void)
+{
+	struct io_uring_task *tctx = current->io_uring;
+
+	if (!tctx)
+		return false;
+	return percpu_counter_read_positive(&tctx->inflight);
+}
+
 /* when returns >0, the caller should retry */
 static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
 					  struct io_wait_queue *iowq)
 {
-	int token, ret;
+	int io_wait, ret;
 
 	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(ctx->check_cq)))
 		return 1;
@@ -2511,17 +2520,19 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
 		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.
+	 * Mark us as being in io_wait if we have pending requests, 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();
+	io_wait = current->in_iowait;
+	if (current_pending_io())
+		current->in_iowait = 1;
 	ret = 0;
 	if (iowq->timeout == KTIME_MAX)
 		schedule();
 	else if (!schedule_hrtimeout(&iowq->timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
 		ret = -ETIME;
-	io_schedule_finish(token);
+	current->in_iowait = io_wait;
 	return ret;
 }
 

-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-07-24 15:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-24 15:35 [PATCH] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait Phil Elwell
2023-07-24 15:48 ` Greg KH
2023-07-24 15:50   ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 15:58     ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 16:07       ` Phil Elwell
2023-07-24 16:08         ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 16:48           ` Phil Elwell
2023-07-24 18:22             ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 19:22       ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-07-24 20:27         ` Jeff Moyer
2023-07-24 15:48 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2023-07-24 16:16   ` Andres Freund
2023-07-24 16:20     ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 17:24     ` Andres Freund
2023-07-24 17:44       ` Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-07-18 19:49 [PATCHSET v2 0/5] Improve async iomap DIO performance Jens Axboe
2023-07-18 19:49 ` [PATCH] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait Jens Axboe
2023-07-18 19:50   ` 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] \
    [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