From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] fast poll multishot mode
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 21:08:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 5/6/22 8:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/6/22 5:26 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/6/22 4:23 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 5/6/22 1:00 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>>> Let multishot support multishot mode, currently only add accept as its
>>>> first comsumer.
>>>> theoretical analysis:
>>>> 1) when connections come in fast
>>>> - singleshot:
>>>> add accept sqe(userpsace) --> accept inline
>>>> ^ |
>>>> |-----------------|
>>>> - multishot:
>>>> add accept sqe(userspace) --> accept inline
>>>> ^ |
>>>> |--*--|
>>>>
>>>> we do accept repeatedly in * place until get EAGAIN
>>>>
>>>> 2) when connections come in at a low pressure
>>>> similar thing like 1), we reduce a lot of userspace-kernel context
>>>> switch and useless vfs_poll()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tests:
>>>> Did some tests, which goes in this way:
>>>>
>>>> server client(multiple)
>>>> accept connect
>>>> read write
>>>> write read
>>>> close close
>>>>
>>>> Basically, raise up a number of clients(on same machine with server) to
>>>> connect to the server, and then write some data to it, the server will
>>>> write those data back to the client after it receives them, and then
>>>> close the connection after write return. Then the client will read the
>>>> data and then close the connection. Here I test 10000 clients connect
>>>> one server, data size 128 bytes. And each client has a go routine for
>>>> it, so they come to the server in short time.
>>>> test 20 times before/after this patchset, time spent:(unit cycle, which
>>>> is the return value of clock())
>>>> before:
>>>> 1930136+1940725+1907981+1947601+1923812+1928226+1911087+1905897+1941075
>>>> +1934374+1906614+1912504+1949110+1908790+1909951+1941672+1969525+1934984
>>>> +1934226+1914385)/20.0 = 1927633.75
>>>> after:
>>>> 1858905+1917104+1895455+1963963+1892706+1889208+1874175+1904753+1874112
>>>> +1874985+1882706+1884642+1864694+1906508+1916150+1924250+1869060+1889506
>>>> +1871324+1940803)/20.0 = 1894750.45
>>>>
>>>> (1927633.75 - 1894750.45) / 1927633.75 = 1.65%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A liburing test is here:
>>>> https://github.com/HowHsu/liburing/blob/multishot_accept/test/accept.c
>>>
>>> Wish I had seen that, I wrote my own! But maybe that's good, you tend to
>>> find other issues through that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, works for me in testing, and I can see this being a nice win for
>>> accept intensive workloads. I pushed a bunch of cleanup patches that
>>> should just get folded in. Can you fold them into your patches and
>>> address the other feedback, and post a v3? I pushed the test branch
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=fastpoll-mshot
>>
>> Quick benchmark here, accepting 10k connections:
>>
>> Stock kernel
>> real 0m0.728s
>> user 0m0.009s
>> sys 0m0.192s
>>
>> Patched
>> real 0m0.684s
>> user 0m0.018s
>> sys 0m0.102s
>>
>> Looks like a nice win for a highly synthetic benchmark. Nothing
>> scientific, was just curious.
>
> One more thought on this - how is it supposed to work with
> accept-direct? One idea would be to make it incrementally increasing.
> But we need a good story for that, if it's exclusive to non-direct
> files, then it's a lot less interesting as the latter is really nice win
> for lots of files. If we can combine the two, even better.
Running some quick testing, on an actual test box (previous numbers were
from a vm on my laptop):
Testing singleshot, normal files
Did 10000 accepts
________________________________________________________
Executed in 216.10 millis fish external
usr time 9.32 millis 150.00 micros 9.17 millis
sys time 110.06 millis 67.00 micros 109.99 millis
Testing multishot, fixed files
Did 10000 accepts
________________________________________________________
Executed in 189.04 millis fish external
usr time 11.86 millis 159.00 micros 11.71 millis
sys time 93.71 millis 70.00 micros 93.64 millis
That's about ~19 usec to accept a connection, pretty decent. Using
singleshot and with fixed files, it shaves about ~8% off, ends at around
200msec.
I think we can get away with using fixed files and multishot, attaching
the quick patch I did below to test it. We need something better than
this, otherwise once the space fills up, we'll likely end up with a
sparse space and the naive approach of just incrementing the next slot
won't work at all.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-07 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-06 7:00 [PATCH v2 0/5] fast poll multishot mode Hao Xu
2022-05-06 7:00 ` [PATCH 1/5] io_uring: add IORING_ACCEPT_MULTISHOT for accept Hao Xu
2022-05-06 14:32 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 4:05 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-06 7:00 ` [PATCH 2/5] io_uring: add REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT for requests Hao Xu
2022-05-06 7:01 ` [PATCH 3/5] io_uring: let fast poll support multishot Hao Xu
2022-05-06 17:19 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-06 22:02 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 6:32 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-07 9:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-07 7:08 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-07 9:47 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-07 11:06 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-06 18:02 ` kernel test robot
2022-05-06 7:01 ` [PATCH 4/5] io_uring: add a helper for poll clean Hao Xu
2022-05-06 11:04 ` kernel test robot
2022-05-06 12:47 ` kernel test robot
2022-05-06 14:36 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 6:37 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-06 16:22 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-07 6:43 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-07 9:29 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-06 7:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] io_uring: implement multishot mode for accept Hao Xu
2022-05-06 14:42 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 9:13 ` Hao Xu
2022-05-06 20:50 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-06 21:29 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-06 7:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] fast poll multishot mode Hao Xu
2022-05-06 14:18 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-06 16:01 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-06 16:03 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-06 22:23 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-06 23:26 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 2:33 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-07 3:08 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-05-07 16:01 ` Hao Xu
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