From: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
To: Dylan Yudaken <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Kernel Team <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC for-next 0/8] io_uring: tw contention improvments
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:38:20 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 6/21/22 15:03, Dylan Yudaken wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 13:10 +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
>> On 6/21/22 00:18, Dylan Yudaken wrote:
>>> Task work currently uses a spin lock to guard task_list and
>>> task_running. Some use cases such as networking can trigger
>>> task_work_add
>>> from multiple threads all at once, which suffers from contention
>>> here.
>>>
>>> This can be changed to use a lockless list which seems to have
>>> better
>>> performance. Running the micro benchmark in [1] I see 20%
>>> improvment in
>>> multithreaded task work add. It required removing the priority tw
>>> list
>>> optimisation, however it isn't clear how important that
>>> optimisation is.
>>> Additionally it has fairly easy to break semantics.
>>>
>>> Patch 1-2 remove the priority tw list optimisation
>>> Patch 3-5 add lockless lists for task work
>>> Patch 6 fixes a bug I noticed in io_uring event tracing
>>> Patch 7-8 adds tracing for task_work_run
>>>
>>
>> Compared to the spinlock overhead, the prio task list optimization is
>> definitely unimportant, so I agree with removing it here.
>> Replace the task list with llisy was something I considered but I
>> gave
>> it up since it changes the list to a stack which means we have to
>> handle
>> the tasks in a reverse order. This may affect the latency, do you
>> have
>> some numbers for it, like avg and 99% 95% lat?
>>
>
> Do you have an idea for how to test that? I used a microbenchmark as
> well as a network benchmark [1] to verify that overall throughput is
> higher. TW latency sounds a lot more complicated to measure as it's
I think measuring the end to end latency is a way good enough, no need
to get the accurate number of TW queueing time.
> difficult to trigger accurately.
>
> My feeling is that with reasonable batching (say 8-16 items) the
> latency will be low as TW is generally very quick, but if you have an
> idea for benchmarking I can take a look
>
> [1]: https://github.com/DylanZA/netbench
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-21 7:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-20 16:18 [PATCH RFC for-next 0/8] io_uring: tw contention improvments Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 1/8] io_uring: remove priority tw list optimisation Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 2/8] io_uring: remove __io_req_task_work_add Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 3/8] io_uring: lockless task list Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 4/8] io_uring: introduce llist helpers Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 5/8] io_uring: batch task_work Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:18 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 6/8] io_uring: move io_uring_get_opcode out of TP_printk Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:19 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 7/8] io_uring: add trace event for running task work Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-20 16:19 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 8/8] io_uring: trace task_work_run Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-21 5:10 ` [PATCH RFC for-next 0/8] io_uring: tw contention improvments Hao Xu
2022-06-21 7:03 ` Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-21 7:34 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-22 9:31 ` Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-22 11:16 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-22 11:24 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-22 11:51 ` Dylan Yudaken
2022-06-22 12:28 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-22 12:29 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-22 11:52 ` Hao Xu
2022-06-21 7:38 ` Hao Xu [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] \
[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