From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] 3 cacheline io_kiocb
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 09:45:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 7/25/20 2:31 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> That's not final for a several reasons, but good enough for discussion.
> That brings io_kiocb down to 192B. I didn't try to benchmark it
> properly, but quick nop test gave +5% throughput increase.
> 7531 vs 7910 KIOPS with fio/t/io_uring
>
> The whole situation is obviously a bunch of tradeoffs. For instance,
> instead of shrinking it, we can inline apoll to speed apoll path.
>
> [2/2] just for a reference, I'm thinking about other ways to shrink it.
> e.g. ->link_list can be a single-linked list with linked tiemouts
> storing a back-reference. This can turn out to be better, because
> that would move ->fixed_file_refs to the 2nd cacheline, so we won't
> ever touch 3rd cacheline in the submission path.
> Any other ideas?
Nothing noticeable for me, still about the same performance. But
generally speaking, I don't necessarily think we need to go all in on
making this as tiny as possible. It's much more important to chase the
items where we only use 2 cachelines for the hot path, and then we have
the extra space in there already for the semi hot paths like poll driven
retry. Yes, we're still allocating from a pool that has slightly larger
objects, but that doesn't really matter _that_ much. Avoiding an extra
kmalloc+kfree for the semi hot paths are a bigger deal than making
io_kiocb smaller and smaller.
That said, for no-brainer changes, we absolutely should make it smaller.
I just don't want to jump through convoluted hoops to get there.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-25 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-25 8:31 [RFC 0/2] 3 cacheline io_kiocb Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 8:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: allocate req->work dynamically Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 8:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: unionise ->apoll and ->work Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 15:45 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-07-25 18:24 ` [RFC 0/2] 3 cacheline io_kiocb Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 19:40 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-25 20:14 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 20:25 ` 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