From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5463DC5DF62 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085B214B2 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:48:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="pjwu2L2F" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729823AbfKEXsL (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:48:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:45593 "EHLO mail-pf1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729583AbfKEXsK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:48:10 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z4so11284788pfn.12 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:48:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=05dRAMF1Vz+FeHeAryqq0JNAWj1xNIZkNNmr4b7Ijcc=; b=pjwu2L2FqwbVncAYOc13kacX1Wxo19uCEBZf8Pdn6fDX0d3yQJxlH/Vd3/l9OUMTkw u8Hl+o6BAL2H0s/1O3Gy90bEDALTOWPzNhdYTc/GkGVz+dKZNngUg906iAIeMXa3mR9N O+0RCIxPNOZ1MpsB0Aj0sH7l0soIS9FcjDK5ik97ZVMXjncrr/0IQ9sHl2b4iRU2iFXP 61lBECtPF8TjuqLh51OZO8dh1/I4EWiiyhNqA6j42DCjDT51uxKRDujS4o3X9SD2ww+8 ibggvlQJlioiXf7IWG88BIjk8VOCoPklbbjjuBTLpGhth++gA6B9CqIzeP8sVmmuzkGN NmCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=05dRAMF1Vz+FeHeAryqq0JNAWj1xNIZkNNmr4b7Ijcc=; b=AZP6Ul7uzf8aGfE4gsjhmSKfUmMfTtFKA3MqWGf7T+vYdn8mmMaZ4Kroo6TNZERl9K kma2is5jvpGyJDFwqszEDXmuOItTTqBz/tknBoks+cNnahNkw6zG0CjnxmmBy0HRqj2E v8/HDut5qv2lCXxxqnxe0hSyDQ5ZWYK2UcinAgnbCF8DrsoHwtPpZwisbC1c372xzLF5 pZXqpt9x95kwkCYNqrlOZYBOhjwcIeuZeUxAIChwFeZUewI/KfDlOmrx5O2zSxr3Imir Ng9ftyCSF5ysXNvfl0K+ULBF+dkibQSNhEH2xQcNZnCKx4GNE6Tv/NJEV35VMbbdeKZp gn/g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPwRXKcK57GpuF0v+9wZ6j7FUVbAWdhH4z7y04NUC8MRE/9xqj jSrPi1POx/uF/LZqfSiVkpilqw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIAfVX/SJs7cWhzrGFsFJ3v+s04NG9ZykHj1uKqqUrpDgGycujmu/RnMdSbp1PN21unVtHlw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:ff46:: with SMTP id s6mr39577289pgk.337.1572997688645; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.188] ([66.219.217.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm541194pja.30.2019.11.05.15.48.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:48:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Inline sqe_submit To: Pavel Begunkov , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <1cc9dc92-3468-a780-e8ca-cb0f559a053f@gmail.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:48:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1cc9dc92-3468-a780-e8ca-cb0f559a053f@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: io-uring-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 11/5/19 4:45 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 06/11/2019 02:37, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/5/19 4:04 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> The proposal is to not pass struct sqe_submit as a separate entity, >>> but always use req->submit instead, so there will be less stuff to >>> care about. The reasoning begind is code simplification. >>> >>> Also, I've got steady +1% throughput improvement for nop tests. >>> Though, it's highly system-dependent, and I wouldn't count on it. >>> >>> P.S. I'll double check the patches, if the idea is accepted. >> >> I like the idea (a lot), makes the whole thing easier to follow as well. > > Great, than I'll prepare the patches properly and resend it Perfect - doesn't look like it'll conflict with the submission path cleanup (which also looks good), but if it does, just collate them into a single series. -- Jens Axboe