From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
To: Uzair Beg <uzairbeg11@gmail.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com,
Chengfeng Lin <lin2530632123@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Uzair Beg <uzairbeg11@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] io_uring/rsrc: prefill the node cache when a file table is registered empty
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:20:28 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fqza1imr.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914092049.130079-4-uzairbeg11@gmail.com>
Uzair Beg <uzairbeg11@gmail.com> writes:
> Registering a sparse fixed file table allocates no nodes at
> registration time; each node is allocated later, on the install path,
> where MSG_RING SEND_FD pays for it. Bare-metal measurement of the
> 4,096-slot first fill shows the cost is not the allocator call
> (bulk refill was neutral) nor fresh slab pages (priming the slab was
> neutral), but the per-object SLUB allocation path itself. The only way
> to take it off the install path is to not allocate there.
>
> When a sparse table of N slots is registered, grow the per-ring node
> cache to min(N, IO_ALLOC_CACHE_PREFILL_MAX) and bulk-fill it, so the
> subsequent installs hit the cache. Prefill is best-effort: on any
> failure the cache is left in a valid state (a successfully grown
> pointer array is retained) and registration proceeds unchanged.
> Non-sparse registrations are untouched, since they allocate every node
> inline anyway.
I'm unconvinced this is the right approach. This is only relevant for
initialization overhead: once the ring is in operation, the overhead is
gone because nodes are recycled. So this will really benefit
short-lived applications that create large tables, something that I
suspect is rare outside of artificial benchmarks. On the other hand,
people are creating sparse but arbitrarily large tables. Does it make
sense to pre-allocated up to 192KB in memory for short-lived
applications that might use only a couple of those nodes?
> On the reported 4,096-slot first fill this is 9.8% faster than
> unpatched. Because the enlarged cache also retains nodes released by
> FILES_UPDATE, a same-ring remove-and-refill of 4,096 files is 18.8%
> faster. The cost is moved to registration rather than removed: a
> one-shot register-then-fill is unchanged overall, and a program that
> registers many slots and installs few pays for nodes it never uses.
> Whether that trade is acceptable, or should be behind a registration
> flag, is the question this patch is intended to raise.
>
> The stash loop from the bulk refill path is factored into a helper so
> both callers share it.
>
> Reported-by: Chengfeng Lin <lin2530632123@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/CANGjgdmt0FQ=offsdfn+wEaDxbOFoAa6bi92X_vEo4S6aCZ56A@mail.gmail.com/
> Tested-by: Chengfeng Lin <lin2530632123@gmail.com>
> Co-developed-by: Chengfeng Lin <lin2530632123@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Lin <lin2530632123@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Uzair Beg <uzairbeg11@gmail.com>
> ---
> io_uring/alloc_cache.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> io_uring/alloc_cache.h | 2 ++
> io_uring/rsrc.c | 4 +++
> 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/io_uring/alloc_cache.c b/io_uring/alloc_cache.c
> index cba0e6c5d66..2c6e09313d2 100644
> --- a/io_uring/alloc_cache.c
> +++ b/io_uring/alloc_cache.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,22 @@ bool io_alloc_cache_init(struct io_alloc_cache *cache,
> return false;
> }
>
> +static void io_cache_stash(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, void **slot,
> + unsigned int nr)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> + if (cache->init_clear)
> + memset(slot[i], 0, cache->init_clear);
> + if (unlikely(!kasan_mempool_poison_object(slot[i])))
> + break;
> + cache->nr_cached++;
> + }
> + for (; i < nr; i++)
> + kmem_cache_free(cache->slab, slot[i]);
> +}
> +
> void *io_cache_alloc_new(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp)
> {
> void *obj;
> @@ -45,7 +61,7 @@ void *io_cache_alloc_new(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp)
> if (cache->slab) {
> unsigned int room = cache->max_cached - cache->nr_cached;
> void **slot = &cache->entries[cache->nr_cached];
> - unsigned int batch, got, i;
> + unsigned int batch, got;
>
> if (unlikely(!room))
> return kmem_cache_alloc(cache->slab, gfp);
> @@ -57,15 +73,7 @@ void *io_cache_alloc_new(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp)
>
> /* return one object, stash the rest in the cache */
> obj = slot[got - 1];
> - for (i = 0; i < got - 1; i++) {
> - if (cache->init_clear)
> - memset(slot[i], 0, cache->init_clear);
> - if (unlikely(!kasan_mempool_poison_object(slot[i])))
> - break;
> - cache->nr_cached++;
> - }
> - for (; i < got - 1; i++)
> - kmem_cache_free(cache->slab, slot[i]);
> + io_cache_stash(cache, slot, got - 1);
> } else {
> obj = kmalloc(cache->elem_size, gfp);
> }
> @@ -73,3 +81,33 @@ void *io_cache_alloc_new(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp)
> memset(obj, 0, cache->init_clear);
> return obj;
> }
> +
> +void io_alloc_cache_prefill(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, unsigned int nr)
> +{
> + gfp_t gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN;
> + unsigned int got;
> + void **entries;
> +
> + if (!cache->slab || !cache->entries)
> + return;
> +
> + nr = min_t(unsigned int, nr, IO_ALLOC_CACHE_PREFILL_MAX);
> + if (nr <= cache->nr_cached)
> + return;
> +
> + if (nr > cache->max_cached) {
> + entries = kvmalloc_array(nr, sizeof(void *), gfp);
> + if (!entries)
> + return;
> + memcpy(entries, cache->entries,
> + cache->nr_cached * sizeof(void *));
> + kvfree(cache->entries);
> + cache->entries = entries;
> + cache->max_cached = nr;
> + }
> +
> + got = kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(cache->slab, gfp, nr - cache->nr_cached,
> + &cache->entries[cache->nr_cached]);
> + if (got)
> + io_cache_stash(cache, &cache->entries[cache->nr_cached], got);
> +}
> diff --git a/io_uring/alloc_cache.h b/io_uring/alloc_cache.h
> index 82d552c7517..ca6af52dd7d 100644
> --- a/io_uring/alloc_cache.h
> +++ b/io_uring/alloc_cache.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> */
> #define IO_ALLOC_CACHE_MAX 128
> #define IO_ALLOC_CACHE_REFILL 32
> +#define IO_ALLOC_CACHE_PREFILL_MAX 4096
>
> void io_alloc_cache_free(struct io_alloc_cache *cache,
> void (*free)(const void *));
> @@ -16,6 +17,7 @@ bool io_alloc_cache_init(struct io_alloc_cache *cache,
> unsigned int init_bytes);
>
> void *io_cache_alloc_new(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp);
> +void io_alloc_cache_prefill(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, unsigned int nr);
>
> static inline bool io_alloc_cache_put(struct io_alloc_cache *cache,
> void *entry)
> diff --git a/io_uring/rsrc.c b/io_uring/rsrc.c
> index 6413682ebe4..b7f78b6b514 100644
> --- a/io_uring/rsrc.c
> +++ b/io_uring/rsrc.c
> @@ -560,6 +560,10 @@ int io_sqe_files_register(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, void __user *arg,
> if (!io_alloc_file_tables(ctx, &ctx->file_table, nr_args))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + /* sparse table: nodes are installed later, so cache them now */
> + if (!fds)
> + io_alloc_cache_prefill(&ctx->node_cache, nr_args);
> +
> for (i = 0; i < nr_args; i++) {
> struct io_rsrc_node *node;
> u64 tag = 0;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-15 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 9:20 [RFC PATCH 0/3] io_uring/rsrc: reduce node allocation cost on sparse file table installs Uzair Beg
2026-09-14 9:20 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] io_uring/rsrc: allocate io_rsrc_node from a dedicated kmem_cache Uzair Beg
2026-09-15 17:54 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2026-09-14 9:20 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] io_uring/rsrc: bulk refill the node cache on allocation miss Uzair Beg
2026-09-14 9:20 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] io_uring/rsrc: prefill the node cache when a file table is registered empty Uzair Beg
2026-09-15 18:20 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [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 \
--in-reply-to=87fqza1imr.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be \
--to=krisman@suse.de \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lin2530632123@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=uzairbeg11@gmail.com \
/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®