IO-Uring Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <>
To: Pavel Begunkov <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] task_put batching
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:11:21 -0600
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 7/20/20 10:06 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 20/07/2020 18:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/20/20 9:22 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2020 17:37, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/20 2:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> For my a bit exaggerated test case perf continues to show high CPU
>>>>> cosumption by io_dismantle(), and so calling it io_iopoll_complete().
>>>>> Even though the patch doesn't yield throughput increase for my setup,
>>>>> probably because the effect is hidden behind polling, but it definitely
>>>>> improves relative percentage. And the difference should only grow with
>>>>> increasing number of CPUs. Another reason to have this is that atomics
>>>>> may affect other parallel tasks (e.g. which doesn't use io_uring)
>>>>> before:
>>>>> io_iopoll_complete: 5.29%
>>>>> io_dismantle_req:   2.16%
>>>>> after:
>>>>> io_iopoll_complete: 3.39%
>>>>> io_dismantle_req:   0.465%
>>>> Still not seeing a win here, but it's clean and it _should_ work. For
>>>> some reason I end up getting the offset in task ref put growing the
>>>> fput_many(). Which doesn't (on the surface) make a lot of sense, but
>>>> may just mean that we have some weird side effects.
>>> It grows because the patch is garbage, the second condition is always false.
>>> See the diff. Could you please drop both patches?
>> Hah, indeed. With this on top, it looks like it should in terms of
>> performance and profiles.
> It just shows, that it doesn't really matters for a single-threaded app,
> as expected. Worth to throw some contention though. I'll think about
> finding some time to get/borrow a multi-threaded one.

But it kind of did here, ended up being mostly a wash in terms of perf
here as my testing reported. With the incremental applied, it's up a bit
over before the task put batching.

>> I can just fold this into the existing one, if you'd like.
> Would be nice. I'm going to double-check the counter and re-measure anyway.
> BTW, how did you find it? A tool or a proc file would be awesome.

For this kind of testing, I just use t/io_uring out of fio. It's probably
the lowest overhead kind of tool:

# sudo taskset -c 0 t/io_uring -b512 -p1 /dev/nvme2n1

Jens Axboe

  reply index

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-18  8:32 Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18  8:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] tasks: add put_task_struct_many() Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18  8:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: batch put_task_struct() Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-18 14:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] task_put batching Jens Axboe
2020-07-19 11:15   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-19 18:49     ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-20 14:18       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-20 15:22   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-20 15:49     ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-20 16:06       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-20 16:11         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-07-20 16:42           ` 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

IO-Uring Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror io-uring/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 io-uring io-uring/ \
	public-inbox-index io-uring

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone