From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] optimise local-tw task resheduling
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:53:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c81c971e-3e00-0767-3158-d712208f15e9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee962f58-1074-0480-333b-67b360ea8b87@gmail.com>
On 3/11/23 20:45, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 3/11/23 17:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/10/23 12:04?PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> io_uring extensively uses task_work, but when a task is waiting
>>> for multiple CQEs it causes lots of rescheduling. This series
>>> is an attempt to optimise it and be a base for future improvements.
>>>
>>> For some zc network tests eventually waiting for a portion of
>>> buffers I've got 10x descrease in the number of context switches,
>>> which reduced the CPU consumption more than twice (17% -> 8%).
>>> It also helps storage cases, while running fio/t/io_uring against
>>> a low performant drive it got 2x descrease of the number of context
>>> switches for QD8 and ~4 times for QD32.
>>>
>>> Not for inclusion yet, I want to add an optimisation for when
>>> waiting for 1 CQE.
>>
>> Ran this on the usual peak benchmark, using IRQ. IOPS is around ~70M for
>> that, and I see context rates of around 8.1-8.3M/sec with the current
>> kernel.
>>
>> Applied the two patches, but didn't see much of a change? Performance is
>> about the same, and cx rate ditto. Confused... As you probably know,
>> this test waits for 32 ios at the time.
>
> If I'd to guess it already has perfect batching, for which case
> the patch does nothing. Maybe it's due to SSD coalescing +
> small ro I/O + consistency and small latencies of Optanes,
> or might be on the scheduling and the kernel side to be slow
> to react.
And if that's that, I have to note that it's quite a sterile
case, the last time I asked the usual batching we're currently
getting for networking cases is 1-2.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-11 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-10 19:04 Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-10 19:04 ` [RFC 1/2] io_uring: add tw add flags Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-10 19:04 ` [RFC 2/2] io_uring: reduce sheduling due to tw Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-11 17:24 ` [RFC 0/2] optimise local-tw task resheduling Jens Axboe
2023-03-11 20:45 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-11 20:53 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2023-03-12 15:31 ` Jens Axboe
2023-03-13 3:52 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-12 15:30 ` Jens Axboe
2023-03-13 3:45 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-13 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2023-03-13 17:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-13 22:01 ` Jens Axboe
2023-03-16 12:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-15 2:35 ` Ming Lei
2023-03-15 16:53 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-03-16 1:25 ` Ming Lei
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=c81c971e-3e00-0767-3158-d712208f15e9@gmail.com \
--to=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--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®