From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Buffered IO async context overhead
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 00:02:30 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 09/03/2020 23:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/9/20 2:03 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 24/02/2020 18:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> A problem here is that we actually have a 2D array of works because of linked
>> requests.
>
> You could either skip anything with a link, or even just ignore it and
> simply re-queue a dependent link if it isn't hashed when it's done if
> grabbed in a batch.
>
>> We can io_wqe_enqueue() dependant works, if have hashed requests, so delegating
>> it to other threads. But if the work->list is not per-core, it will hurt
>> locality. Either re-enqueue hashed ones if there is a dependant work. Need to
>> think how to do better.
>
> If we ignore links for a second, I think we can all agree that it'd be a
> big win to do the batch.
Definitely
>
> With links, worst case would then be something where every other link is
> hashed.
>
> For a first patch, I'd be quite happy to just stop the batch if there's
> a link on a request. The normal case here is buffered writes, and
> that'll handle that case perfectly. Links will be no worse than before.
> Seems like a no-brainer to me.
That isn't really a problem, just pointing that there could be optimisations for
different cases.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-09 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-14 19:50 Buffered IO async context overhead Andres Freund
2020-02-14 20:13 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 20:31 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-14 20:49 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 9:35 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 20:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-09 20:41 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 21:02 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-03-09 21:29 ` Jens Axboe
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] \
/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