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
next prev parent 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).