mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v6 0/4] Split iowait into two states
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:02:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8380f7f3-fd9f-45a0-b66b-85ec0b5d0144@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240819154259.215504-1-axboe@kernel.dk>

On 8/19/24 16:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is v6 of the patchset where the current in_iowait state is split
> into two parts:
> 
> 1) The "task is sleeping waiting on IO", and would like cpufreq goodness
>     in terms of sleep and wakeup latencies.
> 2) The above, and also accounted as such in the iowait stats.
> 
> The current ->in_iowait covers both, this series splits it into two types
> of state so that each can be controlled seperately.
> 
> Patches 1..3 are prep patches, changing the type of
> task_struct->nr_iowait and adding helpers to manipulate the iowait counts.
> 
> Patch 4 does the actual splitting.
> 
> This has been sitting for a while, would be nice to get this queued up
> for 6.12. Comments welcome!

Good day,

Did anything good happened with these patches or related work?
Christian?

Reminder: the goal is to let io_uring to keep using iowait boosting
but avoid reporting it in the iowait stats, because the jump in the
stat spooks users. I know at least several users carrying out of tree
patches to work it around. And, apparently, disabling the boosting
causes perf regressions.

I'm reading through the thread, but unless I missed something, it looks
like the patchset is actually aligned with future plans on iowait
mentioned in the thread, in a sense that it reduces the exposure to
the user space, and, when it's time, a better approach will be able
replaces it with no visible effect to the user.

On the other hand, there seems to be a work around io_uring patch
queued for, which I quite dislike from io_uring perspective but also
because it exposes even more of iowait to the user.
I can understand why it's there, it has been over a year since v1,
but maybe we can figure something out before it's released? Would
it be fine to have something similar to this series? Any other
ideas?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-31  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-19 15:39 Jens Axboe
2024-08-19 15:39 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/core: add helpers for iowait handling Jens Axboe
2024-08-19 15:39 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/core: change rq->nr_iowait type to atomic_long_t Jens Axboe
2024-08-20  2:14   ` Zhang Qiao
2024-08-19 15:39 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/core: have io_schedule_prepare() return a long Jens Axboe
2024-09-05  9:57   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-19 15:39 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/core: split iowait state into two states Jens Axboe
2024-09-05 10:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-21 14:54 ` [PATCHSET v6 0/4] Split iowait " Christian Loehle
2024-08-21 15:04   ` Jens Axboe
2024-08-21 15:57     ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-24 15:34       ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-04 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-04 14:41   ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-04 14:49     ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-05  9:51     ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-04 14:42   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-04 15:18     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-05  9:29       ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 10:40         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-05  9:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-05 10:31         ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 11:00           ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-05 11:09             ` Christian Loehle
2025-03-31  9:02 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2025-03-31 10:33   ` Christian Loehle
2025-04-01  8:21     ` 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 \
    --in-reply-to=8380f7f3-fd9f-45a0-b66b-85ec0b5d0144@gmail.com \
    --to=asml.silence@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®