public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>,
	[email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] io_uring: avoid whole io_wq_work copy for requests completed inline
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 11:03:18 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 5/28/20 3:15 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> If requests can be submitted and completed inline, we don't need to
> initialize whole io_wq_work in io_init_req(), which is an expensive
> operation, add a new 'REQ_F_WORK_INITIALIZED' to control whether
> io_wq_work is initialized.
> 
> I use /dev/nullb0 to evaluate performance improvement in my physical
> machine:
>   modprobe null_blk nr_devices=1 completion_nsec=0
>   sudo taskset -c 60 fio  -name=fiotest -filename=/dev/nullb0 -iodepth=128
>   -thread -rw=read -ioengine=io_uring -direct=1 -bs=4k -size=100G -numjobs=1
>   -time_based -runtime=120
> 
> before this patch:
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    READ: bw=724MiB/s (759MB/s), 724MiB/s-724MiB/s (759MB/s-759MB/s),
>    io=84.8GiB (91.1GB), run=120001-120001msec
> 
> With this patch:
> Run status group 0 (all jobs):
>    READ: bw=761MiB/s (798MB/s), 761MiB/s-761MiB/s (798MB/s-798MB/s),
>    io=89.2GiB (95.8GB), run=120001-120001msec
> 
> About 5% improvement.

I think this is a big enough of a win to warrant looking closer
at this. Just a quick comment from me so far:

> @@ -2923,7 +2943,10 @@ static int io_fsync(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  {
>  	/* fsync always requires a blocking context */
>  	if (force_nonblock) {
> -		req->work.func = io_fsync_finish;
> +		if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_WORK_INITIALIZED))
> +			init_io_work(req, io_fsync_finish);
> +		else
> +			req->work.func = io_fsync_finish;

This pattern is repeated enough to warrant a helper, ala:

static void io_req_init_async(req, func)
{
	if (req->flags & REQ_F_WORK_INITIALIZED)
		req->work.func = func;
	else
		init_io_work(req, func);
}

also swapped the conditions, I tend to find it easier to read without
the negation.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-28 17:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-28  9:15 [PATCH v3 1/2] io_uring: avoid whole io_wq_work copy for requests completed inline Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-28  9:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] io_uring: avoid unnecessary io_wq_work copy for fast poll feature Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-28 17:03 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-05-29  3:58   ` [PATCH v3 1/2] io_uring: avoid whole io_wq_work copy for requests completed inline Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-29  8:58 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-29 14:27   ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-30 13:36   ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-30 13:43     ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-30 19:38     ` Pavel Begunkov

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