public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: don't take percpu_ref operations for registered files in IOPOLL mode
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:04:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

hi,

> On 11/4/20 8:20 PM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>>> In io_file_get() and io_put_file(), currently we use percpu_ref_get() and
>>> percpu_ref_put() for registered files, but it's hard to say they're very
>>> light-weight synchronization primitives, especially in arm platform. In one
>>> our arm machine, I get below perf data(registered files enabled):
>>> Samples: 98K of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 63789396810
>>> Overhead  Command      Shared Object     Symbol
>>>      ...
>>>      0.78%  io_uring-sq  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] io_file_get
>>> There is an obvious overhead that can not be ignored.
>>>
>>> Currently I don't find any good and generic solution for this issue, but
>>> in IOPOLL mode, given that we can always ensure get/put registered files
>>> under uring_lock, we can use a simple and plain u64 counter to synchronize
>>> with registered files update operations in __io_sqe_files_update().
>>>
>>> With this patch, perf data show shows:
>>> Samples: 104K of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 67478249890
>>> Overhead  Command      Shared Object     Symbol
>>>      ...
>>>      0.27%  io_uring-sq  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] io_file_get
>> The above %0.78 => %0.27 improvements are observed in arm machine with
>> 4.19 kernel. In upstream mainline codes, since this patch
>> "2b0d3d3e4fcf percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in
>> fast path", I believe the io_file_get's overhead would be further
>> smaller. I have same tests in same machine, in upstream codes with my
>> patch, now the io_file_get's overhead is %0.44.
>>
>> This patch's idea is simple, and now seems it only gives minor
>> performance improvement, do you have any comments about this patch,
>> should I continue re-send it?
> 
> Can you resend it against for-5.11/io_uring? Looks simple enough to me,
> and it's a nice little win.Thanks, I'll prepare V2 soon.

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2020-11-10  3:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-02  5:05 [PATCH] io_uring: don't take percpu_ref operations for registered files in IOPOLL mode Xiaoguang Wang
2020-11-05  3:20 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-11-09 14:41   ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-10  3:04     ` Xiaoguang Wang [this message]

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 \
    --in-reply-to=c6089492-9280-ab24-e333-4a752b108353@linux.alibaba.com \
    [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