mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: increase batch count
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:31:18 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2102221309570.4728@eggly.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <919b3aa5-7332-0817-3b70-4f20ae6410a8@kernel.dk>

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:36:31 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > 
> >> Currently we cap the batch count at max(32, 2*nr_online_cpus), which these
> >> days is kind of silly as systems have gotten much bigger than in 2009 when
> >> this heuristic was introduced.
> >>
> >> Bump it to capping it at 256 instead. This has a noticeable improvement
> >> for certain io_uring workloads, as io_uring tracks per-task inflight count
> >> using percpu counters.

I want to quibble with the word "capping" here, it's misleading -
but I'm sorry I cannot think of the right word.

The macro is max() not min(): you're making an improvement for
certain io_uring workloads on machines with 1 to 15 cpus, right?
Does "bigger than in 2009" apply to those?

Though, io_uring could as well use percpu_counter_add_batch() instead?

(Yeah, this has nothing to do with me really, but I was looking at
percpu_counter_compare() just now, for tmpfs reasons, so took more
interest.  Not objecting to a change, but the wording leaves me
wondering if the patch does what you think - or, not for the
first time, I'm confused.)

Hugh

> >>
> > 
> > It will also make percpu_counter_read() and
> > percpu_counter_read_positive() more inaccurate than at present.  Any
> > effects from this will take a while to discover.
> 
> It will, but the value of 32 is very low, especially when you are potentially
> doing millions of these per second. So I do think it should track the times
> a bit.
> 
> > But yes, worth trying - I'll add it to the post-rc1 pile.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-22 21:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-18 21:36 Jens Axboe
2021-02-18 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2021-02-18 23:23   ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-22 21:31     ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2021-02-22 21:53       ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-22 22:14         ` Hugh Dickins

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=alpine.LSU.2.11.2102221309570.4728@eggly.anvils \
    --to=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®