IO-Uring Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <>
To: Pavel Begunkov <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] 3 cacheline io_kiocb
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 14:25:49 -0600
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 7/25/20 2:14 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>  On 25/07/2020 22:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/25/20 12:24 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2020 18:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/20 2:31 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> That's not final for a several reasons, but good enough for discussion.
>>>>> That brings io_kiocb down to 192B. I didn't try to benchmark it
>>>>> properly, but quick nop test gave +5% throughput increase.
>>>>> 7531 vs 7910 KIOPS with fio/t/io_uring
>>>>> The whole situation is obviously a bunch of tradeoffs. For instance,
>>>>> instead of shrinking it, we can inline apoll to speed apoll path.
>>>>> [2/2] just for a reference, I'm thinking about other ways to shrink it.
>>>>> e.g. ->link_list can be a single-linked list with linked tiemouts
>>>>> storing a back-reference. This can turn out to be better, because
>>>>> that would move ->fixed_file_refs to the 2nd cacheline, so we won't
>>>>> ever touch 3rd cacheline in the submission path.
>>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>> Nothing noticeable for me, still about the same performance. But
>>>> generally speaking, I don't necessarily think we need to go all in on
>>>> making this as tiny as possible. It's much more important to chase the
>>>> items where we only use 2 cachelines for the hot path, and then we have
>>>> the extra space in there already for the semi hot paths like poll driven
>>>> retry. Yes, we're still allocating from a pool that has slightly larger
>>>> objects, but that doesn't really matter _that_ much. Avoiding an extra
>>>> kmalloc+kfree for the semi hot paths are a bigger deal than making
>>>> io_kiocb smaller and smaller.
>>>> That said, for no-brainer changes, we absolutely should make it smaller.
>>>> I just don't want to jump through convoluted hoops to get there.
>>> Agree, but that's not the end goal. The first point is to kill the union,
>>> but it already has enough space for that.
>> Right
>>> The second is to see, whether we can use the space in a better way. From
>>> the high level perspective ->apoll and ->work are alike and both serve to
>>> provide asynchronous paths, hence the idea to swap them naturally comes to
>>> mind.
>> Totally agree, which is why the union of those kind of makes sense.
>> We're definitely NOT using them at the same time, but the fact that we
>> had various mm/creds/whatnot in the work_struct made that a bit iffy.
> Thinking of it, if combined with work de-init as you proposed before, it's
> probably possible to make a layout similar to the one below
> struct io_kiocb {
> 	...
> 	struct hlist_node	hash_node;
> 	struct callback_head	task_work;	
> 	union {
> 		struct io_wq_work	work;
> 		struct async_poll	apoll;
> 	};
> };
> Saves ->apoll kmalloc(), and the actual work de-init would be negligibly
> rare. Worth to try

And hopefully get rid of the stupid apoll->work and the copy back and
forth... But yes, this would be most excellent, and an ideal layout.

>>> TBH, I don't think it'd do much, because init of ->io would probably
>>> hide any benefit.
>> There should be no ->io init/alloc for this test case.
> I mean, before getting into io_arm_poll_handler(), it should get -EAGAIN
> in io_{read,write}() and initialise ->io in io_setup_async_rw(), at least

Sure, but for my testing, there's never an EAGAIN, so I won't be
exercising that path for the peak testing.

Jens Axboe

      reply index

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-25  8:31 Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25  8:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: allocate req->work dynamically Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25  8:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: unionise ->apoll and ->work Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 15:45 ` [RFC 0/2] 3 cacheline io_kiocb Jens Axboe
2020-07-25 18:24   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 19:40     ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-25 20:14       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-25 20:25         ` Jens Axboe [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:

* 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