From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>,
Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 20:32:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 6/10/21 6:56 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 16:51 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Right, but it still stalls other requests and IIRC there are people
>> not liking the syscall already taking too long. Consider
>> io_req_task_queue(), adds more overhead but will delay execution
>> to the syscall exit.
>>
>> In any case, would be great to have numbers, e.g. to see if
>> io_req_task_queue() is good enough, how often your problem
>> takes places and how much it gives us.
>>
> I will get you more more data later but I did run a fast test that
> lasted 81 seconds with a single TCP connection.
>
> The # of times that the sqe got reissued is 57.
>
> I'll intrumentalize a bit the code to answer the following questions:
>
> 1. What is the ratio of reissued read sqe/total read sqe
> 2. Average exec time of __io_queue_sqe() for a read sqe when data is
> already available vs avg exec time when sqe is reissued
> 3. average exec time when the sqe is pushed to async when it could have
> been reissued.
>
> With that info, I think that we will be in better position to evaluate
> whether or not the patch is good or not.
>
> Can you think of other numbers that would be useful to know to evaluate
> the patch performance?
If throughput + latency (avg + several nines) are better (or any
other measurable improvement), it's a good enough argument to me,
but not sure what test case you're looking at. Single threaded?
Does it saturate your CPU?
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <[email protected]>
2021-06-10 9:03 ` [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation Pavel Begunkov
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2021-06-10 15:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-10 17:56 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-10 19:32 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-06-11 3:55 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-17 18:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-18 22:45 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 20:55 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 21:31 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 22:04 ` Pavel Begunkov
[not found] <[email protected]>
2021-06-16 12:48 ` Jens Axboe
2021-06-18 21:38 ` Olivier Langlois
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