linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: introduce inline reqs for IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL & direct_io
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 21:47:22 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <15be30c1-db76-d446-16c0-f2ef340658ec@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554174646-1715-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>

On 4/1/19 9:10 PM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> For the IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL & direct_io case, all of the submission
> and completion are handled under ctx->uring_lock or in SQ poll thread
> context, so io_get_req and io_put_req has been serialized well.
> 
> Based on this, we introduce the preallocated reqs ring per ctx and
> needn't to provide any lock to serialize the updating of the head
> and tail. The performacne benefits from this. The test result of
> following fio command
> 
> fio --name=io_uring_test --ioengine=io_uring --hipri --fixedbufs
> --iodepth=16 --direct=1 --numjobs=1 --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --bs=4k
> --group_reporting --runtime=10
> 
> shows IOPS upgrade from 197K to 206K.

I like this idea, but not a fan of the execution of it. See below.

> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 6aaa3058..40837e4 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -104,11 +104,17 @@ struct async_list {
>  	size_t			io_pages;
>  };
>  
> +#define INLINE_REQS_TOTAL 128
> +
>  struct io_ring_ctx {
>  	struct {
>  		struct percpu_ref	refs;
>  	} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>  
> +	struct io_kiocb *inline_reqs[INLINE_REQS_TOTAL];
> +	struct io_kiocb *inline_req_array;
> +	unsigned long inline_reqs_h, inline_reqs_t;

Why not just use a list? The req has a list member anyway. Then you don't
need a huge array, just a count.

> +
>  	struct {
>  		unsigned int		flags;
>  		bool			compat;
> @@ -183,7 +189,9 @@ struct io_ring_ctx {
>  
>  struct sqe_submit {
>  	const struct io_uring_sqe	*sqe;
> +	struct file 			*file;
>  	unsigned short			index;
> +	bool 				is_fixed;
>  	bool				has_user;
>  	bool				needs_lock;
>  	bool				needs_fixed_file;

Not sure why you're moving these to the sqe_submit?

> @@ -228,7 +236,7 @@ struct io_kiocb {
>  #define REQ_F_PREPPED		16	/* prep already done */
>  	u64			user_data;
>  	u64			error;
> -
> +	bool 			ctx_inline;
>  	struct work_struct	work;
>  };

ctx_inline should just be a req flag.

>  
> @@ -397,7 +405,8 @@ static void io_ring_drop_ctx_refs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned refs)
>  }
>  
>  static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> -				   struct io_submit_state *state)
> +				   struct io_submit_state *state,
> +				   bool direct_io)
>  {
>  	gfp_t gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN;
>  	struct io_kiocb *req;
> @@ -405,10 +414,19 @@ static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>  	if (!percpu_ref_tryget(&ctx->refs))
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	if (!state) {
> +	/*
> +	 * Avoid race with workqueue context that handle buffered IO.
> +	 */
> +	if (direct_io &&
> +	    ctx->inline_reqs_h - ctx->inline_reqs_t < INLINE_REQS_TOTAL) {
> +	    req = ctx->inline_reqs[ctx->inline_reqs_h % INLINE_REQS_TOTAL];
> +	    ctx->inline_reqs_h++;
> +	    req->ctx_inline = true;
> +	} else if (!state) {

What happens for O_DIRECT that ends up being punted to async context?
We need a clearer indication of whether or not we're under the lock or
not, and then get rid of the direct_io "limitation" for this. Arguably,
cached buffered IO needs this even more than O_DIRECT does, since that
is much faster.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-02  3:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-02  3:10 [PATCH] io_uring: introduce inline reqs for IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL & direct_io Jianchao Wang
2019-04-02  3:47 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-04-02  8:29   ` jianchao.wang

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=15be30c1-db76-d446-16c0-f2ef340658ec@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).