archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <>
To: "Carter Li 李通洲" <>,
	"Pavel Begunkov" <>
Cc: io-uring <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] single cqe per link
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:36:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 2/24/20 7:14 PM, Carter Li 李通洲 wrote:
>> 2020年2月25日 上午8:39,Pavel Begunkov <> 写道:
>> I've got curious about performance of the idea of having only 1 CQE per link
>> (for the failed or last one). Tested it with a quick dirty patch doing
>> submit-and-reap of a nops-link (patched for inline execution).
>> 1) link size: 100
>> old: 206 ns per nop
>> new: 144 ns per nop
>> 2) link size: 10
>> old: 234 ns per nop
>> new: 181 ns per nop
>> 3) link size: 10, FORCE_ASYNC
>> old: 667 ns per nop
>> new: 569 ns per nop
>> The patch below breaks sequences, linked_timeout and who knows what else.
>> The first one requires synchronisation/atomic, so it's a bit in the way. I've
>> been wondering, whether IOSQE_IO_DRAIN is popular and how much it's used. We can
>> try to find tradeoff or even disable it with this feature.
> Hello Pavel,
> I still think flags tagged on sqes could be a better choice, which
> gives users an ability to deside if they want to ignore the cqes, not
> only for links, but also for normal sqes.
> In addition, boxed cqes couldn’t resolve the issue of

I would tend to agree, and it'd be trivial to just set the flag on
whatever SQEs in the chain you don't care about. Or even an individual
SQE, though that's probably a bit more of a reach in terms of use case.
Maybe nop with drain + ignore?

In any case it's definitely more flexible.

Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-25  2:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-25  0:39 [RFC] single cqe per link Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-25  2:14 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-25  2:36   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-02-25  3:13     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-25 10:12       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-25 20:20         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-25 21:13           ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-08-21  5:17             ` Questions about IORING_OP_ASYNC_CANCEL usage Carter Li 李通洲
2020-08-21  5:20               ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-25  2:24 ` [RFC] single cqe per link Jens Axboe

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
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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).