From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] submission path cleanups and optimisation
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:25:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 2/18/21 11:29 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> Refactor how we do io_req_prep(), which is currently spilled across
> multiple ifs and functions, that's a mess which is hard to validate.
> It also cuts down amount of work we're doing during submission, where
> nops(batch=32) test shows 15217 vs 16830 KIOPS, before and after
> respectively.
>
> 1-6 are easy and should change nothing functionally.
>
> 7/11 cancels all the link, where currently it can be partially executed.
> That happens only in some cases, and currently is not consistent. That
> change alters the user visible behaviour and breaks one liburing test,
> but looks like the right thing to do. (IMHO, the test is buggy in that
> regard).
>
> 8/11 makes us to do one more opcode switch for where we previously
> were doing io_req_defer_prep(). That includes all links, but the total
> performance win, removing an extra async setup in 10/11, and just making
> all the thing cleaner justifies it well enough.
Looks good and tests good, I'm going to queue this up for 5.12 as it'll
be easier for later fixes too.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-18 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-18 18:29 [PATCH 00/11] submission path cleanups and optimisation Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 01/11] io_uring: kill fictitious submit iteration index Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 02/11] io_uring: keep io_*_prep() naming consistent Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 03/11] io_uring: don't duplicate ->file check in sfr Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 04/11] io_uring: move io_init_req()'s definition Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 05/11] io_uring: move io_init_req() into io_submit_sqe() Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 06/11] io_uring: move req link into submit_state Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 07/11] io_uring: don't submit link on error Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 08/11] io_uring: split sqe-prep and async setup Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 09/11] io_uring: do io_*_prep() early in io_submit_sqe() Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 10/11] io_uring: don't do async setup for links' heads Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 18:29 ` [PATCH 11/11] io_uring: fail links more in io_submit_sqe() Pavel Begunkov
2021-02-18 20:25 ` Jens Axboe [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 \
[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