Re: [RFC 00/13] uring-passthru for nvme

[Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/21 7:17 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> > Here is a revamped series on uring-passthru which is on top of Jens
> > "nvme-passthru-wip.2" branch.
> > https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=nvme-passthru-wip.2
> >
> > This scales much better than before with the addition of following:
> > - plugging
> > - passthru polling (sync and async; sync part comes from a patch that
> >   Keith did earlier)
> > - bio-cache (this is regardless of irq/polling since we submit/complete in
> >   task-contex anyway. Currently kicks in when fixed-buffer option is
> > also passed, but that's primarily to keep the plumbing simple)
> >
> > Also the feedback from Christoph (previous fixed-buffer series) is in
> > which has streamlined the plumbing.
> >
> > I look forward to further feedback/comments.
> >
> > KIOPS(512b) on P5800x looked like this:
> >
> > QD    uring    pt    uring-poll    pt-poll
> > 8      538     589      831         902
> > 64     967     1131     1351        1378
> > 256    1043    1230     1376        1429
>
> These are nice results! Can you share all the job files or fio
> invocations for each of these? I guess it's just two variants, with QD
> varied between them?

Yes, just two variants with three QD/batch combinations.
Here are all the job files for the above data:
https://github.com/joshkan/fio/tree/nvme-passthru-wip-polling/pt-perf-jobs

> We really (REALLY) should turn the nvme-wip branch into something
> coherent, but at least with this we have some idea of an end result and
> something that is testable. This looks so much better from the
> performance POV than the earlier versions, passthrough _should_ be
> faster than non-pt.
>
It'd be great to know how it performs in your setup.
And please let me know how I can help in making things more coherent.

-- 
Joshi