From: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: Split io_issue_def struct
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:52:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 05:35:22PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Breno Leitao <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > This patch removes some "cold" fields from `struct io_issue_def`.
> >
> > The plan is to keep only highly used fields into `struct io_issue_def`, so,
> > it may be hot in the cache. The hot fields are basically all the bitfields
> > and the callback functions for .issue and .prep.
> >
> > The other less frequently used fields are now located in a secondary and
> > cold struct, called `io_cold_def`.
> >
> > This is the size for the structs:
> >
> > Before: io_issue_def = 56 bytes
> > After: io_issue_def = 24 bytes; io_cold_def = 40 bytes
>
> Does this change have an observable impact in run time? Did it show
> a significant decrease of dcache misses?
I haven't tested it. I expect it might be hard to came up with such test.
A possible test might be running io_uring heavy tests, while adding
enough memory pressure. Doing this in two different instant (A/B test),
might be a unpredicable and the error deviation might hide the benefit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 14:44 [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: Rename struct io_op_def Breno Leitao
2023-01-12 14:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: Split io_issue_def struct Breno Leitao
2023-01-12 20:35 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-01-16 10:52 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2023-01-16 13:55 ` Jens Axboe
2023-01-18 13:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-01-18 13:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: Rename struct io_op_def Pavel Begunkov
2023-01-18 14:39 ` 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] \
[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