From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Deduplicate io_*_prep calls?
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:52:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 2/23/20 8:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-02-23 20:17:45 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> that seems a bit unnecessary. How about breaking that out into a
>>> separate function? I can write up a patch, just didn't want to do so if
>>> there's a reason for the current split.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively it'd could all be just be dispatches via io_op_defs, but
>>> that'd be a bigger change with potential performance implications. And
>>> it'd benefit from prior deduplication anyway.
>>
>> The reason for the split is that if we defer a request, it has to be
>> prepared up front. If the request has been deferred, then the
>> io_issue_sqe() invocation has sqe == NULL. Hence we only run the prep
>> handler once, and read the sqe just once.
>
>> This could of course be compacted with some indirect function calls, but
>> I didn't want to pay the overhead of doing so... The downside is that
>> the code is a bit bigger.
>
> Shouldn't need indirect function calls? At most the switch() would be
> duplicated, if the compiler can't optimize it away (ok, that's an
> indirect jump...). I was just thinking of moving the io_*_prep() switch
> into something like io_prep_sqe().
>
> io_req_defer_prep() would basically move its switch into io_prep_sqe
> (but not touch the rest of its code). io_issue_sqe() would have
>
> if (sqe) {
> ret = io_prep_sqe(req, sqe, force_nonblock);
> if (ret != 0)
> return ret;
> }
>
> at the start.
>
> Even if the added switch can't be optimized away from io_issue_sqe(),
> the code for all the branches inside the opcode cases isn't free
> either...
The fast case is not being deferred, that's by far the common (and hot)
case, which means io_issue() is called with sqe != NULL. My worry is
that by moving it into a prep helper, the compiler isn't smart enough to
not make that basically two switches. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'd
love to reduce it ;-)
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-24 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-24 1:07 Deduplicate io_*_prep calls? Andres Freund
2020-02-24 3:17 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 3:33 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 3:52 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-02-24 7:12 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 9:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:40 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:44 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:46 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:53 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 16:02 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 16:18 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 17:08 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 17:16 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-25 9:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-27 21:06 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 16:53 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 17:19 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:37 ` 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] \
/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