From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Joseph Qi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5.13 1/2] io_uring: add support for ns granularity of io_sq_thread_idle
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:04:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 9/30/21 9:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 9/29/21 1:13 PM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> 在 2021/9/29 下午7:37, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
>>> On 9/29/21 10:24 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>>> 在 2021/9/28 下午6:51, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
>>>>> On 9/26/21 11:00 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> I'm gonna pick this one up again, currently this patch
>>>>>> with ktime_get_ns() works good on our productions. This
>>>>>> patch makes the latency a bit higher than before, but
>>>>>> still lower than aio.
>>>>>> I haven't gotten a faster alternate for ktime_get_ns(),
>>>>>> any hints?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, I'd suggest to look through Documentation/core-api/timekeeping.rst
>>>>> In particular coarse variants may be of interest.
>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/timekeeping.html#coarse-and-fast-ns-access
>>>>>
>>>> The coarse functions seems to be like jiffies, because they use the last
>>>> timer tick(from the explanation in that doc, it seems the timer tick is
>>>> in the same frequency as jiffies update). So I believe it is just
>>>> another format of jiffies which is low accurate.
>>>
>>> I haven't looked into the details, but it seems that unlike jiffies for
>>> the coarse mode 10ms (or whatever) is the worst case, but it _may_ be
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but for jiffies, 10ms uis also the worst case, no?
>> (say HZ = 100, then jiffies updated by 1 every 10ms)
>
> I'm speculating, but it sounds it's updated on every call to ktime_ns()
> in the system, so if someone else calls ktime_ns() every 1us, than the
> resolution will be 1us, where with jiffies the update interval is strictly
> 10ms when HZ=100. May be not true, need to see the code.
Taking a second quick look, doesn't seem to be the case indeed. And it's
limited to your feature anyway, so the overhead of ktime_get() shouldn't
matter much.
>>> much better on average and feasible for your case, but can't predict
>>> if that's really the case in a real system and what will be the
>>> relative error comparing to normal ktime_ns().
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-30 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-28 13:32 [PATCH RFC 5.13 0/2] adaptive sqpoll and its wakeup optimization Hao Xu
2021-04-28 13:32 ` [PATCH RFC 5.13 1/2] io_uring: add support for ns granularity of io_sq_thread_idle Hao Xu
2021-04-28 14:07 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-28 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-28 14:53 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-28 14:54 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-29 3:41 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-29 9:11 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-05 14:07 ` Hao Xu
2021-05-05 17:40 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-29 3:28 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-29 22:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-09-26 10:00 ` Hao Xu
2021-09-28 10:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-09-29 7:52 ` Hao Xu
2021-09-29 9:24 ` Hao Xu
2021-09-29 11:37 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-09-29 12:13 ` Hao Xu
2021-09-30 8:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-09-30 12:04 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-10-05 15:00 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-28 13:32 ` [PATCH RFC 5.13 2/2] io_uring: submit sqes in the original context when waking up sqthread Hao Xu
2021-04-28 14:12 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-29 4:12 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-28 14:34 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-28 14:37 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-29 4:37 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-29 9:28 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-05 11:20 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-28 14:39 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-28 14:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-28 14:53 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-28 14:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-28 15:09 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-29 4:43 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-29 8:44 ` Hao Xu
2021-04-29 22:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-05 13:10 ` Hao Xu
2021-05-05 17:44 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-04-29 22:02 ` 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] \
[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