Re: [RFC] single cqe per link

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 2/25/20 3:12 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/25/2020 6:13 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> I still think flags tagged on sqes could be a better choice, which
>>>> gives users an ability to deside if they want to ignore the cqes, not
>>>> only for links, but also for normal sqes.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, boxed cqes couldn’t resolve the issue of
>>>> IORING_IO_TIMEOUT.
>>>
>>> I would tend to agree, and it'd be trivial to just set the flag on
>>> whatever SQEs in the chain you don't care about. Or even an individual
>>> SQE, though that's probably a bit more of a reach in terms of use case.
>>> Maybe nop with drain + ignore?
> 
> Flexible, but not performant. The existence of drain is already makes
> io_uring to do a lot of extra stuff, and even worse when it's actually used.

Yeah I agree, that's assuming we can make the drain more efficient. Just
hand waving on possible use cases :-)

>>> In any case it's definitely more flexible.
> 
> That's a different thing. Knowing how requests behave (e.g. if
> nbytes!=res, then fail link), one would want to get cqe for the last
> executed sqe, whether it's an error or a success for the last one.
> 
> It makes a link to be handled as a single entity. I don't see a way to
> emulate similar behaviour with the unconditional masking. Probably, we
> will need them both.

But you can easily do that with IOSQE_NO_CQE, in fact that's what I did
to test this. The chain will have IOSQE_NO_CQE | IOSQE_IO_LINK set on
all but the last request.

>> In the interest of taking this to the extreme, I tried a nop benchmark
>> on my laptop (qemu/kvm). Granted, this setup is particularly sensitive
>> to spinlocks, they are a lot more expensive there than on a real host.
>>
>> Anyway, regular nops run at about 9.5M/sec with a single thread.
>> Flagging all SQEs with IOSQE_NO_CQE nets me about 14M/sec. So a handy
>> improvement. Looking at the top of profiles:
>>
>> cqe-per-sqe:
>>
>> +   28.45%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
>> +   14.38%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_submit_sqes
>> +    9.38%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_put_req
>> +    7.25%  io_uring  libc-2.31.so       [.] syscall
>> +    6.12%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
>>
>> no-cqes:
>>
>> +   19.72%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_put_req
>> +   11.93%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_submit_sqes
>> +   10.14%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] kmem_cache_free
>> +    9.55%  io_uring  libc-2.31.so       [.] syscall
>> +    7.48%  io_uring  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __io_queue_sqe
>>
>> I'll try the real disk IO tomorrow, using polled IO.
> 
> Great, would love to see

My box with the optane2 is out of commission, apparently, cannot get it
going today. So I had to make do with my laptop, which does about ~600K
random read IOPS. I don't see any difference there, using polled IO,
using 4 link deep chains (so 1/4th the CQEs). Both run at around
611-613K IOPS.

-- 
Jens Axboe