Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:54:18 -0500
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/aio: obey min_nr when doing wakeups
Message-ID: <Y87l6sd9JRGa+qFw@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230118152603.28301-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20230120140347.2133611-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <x49cz7956ox.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
 <x491qnl5ioe.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <x491qnl5ioe.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:17:53AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi, Kent,
> >
> > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> writes:
> >
> >> I've been observing workloads where IPIs due to wakeups in
> >> aio_complete() are ~15% of total CPU time in the profile. Most of those
> >> wakeups are unnecessary when completion batching is in use in
> >> io_getevents().
> >>
> >> This plumbs min_nr through via the wait eventry, so that aio_complete()
> >> can avoid doing unnecessary wakeups.
> >>
> >> v2: This fixes a race in the first version of the patch. If we read some
> >> events out after adding to the waitlist, we need to update wait.min_nr
> >> call prepare_to_wait_event() again before scheduling.
> >
> > I like the idea of the patch, and I'll get some real world performance
> > numbers soon.  But first, this version (and the previous version as
> > well) fails test case 23 in the libaio regression test suite:
> >
> > Starting cases/23.p
> > FAIL: poll missed an event!
> > FAIL: poll missed an event!
> > test cases/23.t completed FAILED.
> 
> It turns out that this only fails on the (relatively) old kernel against
> which I applied the patches.  When I apply both patches to the latest
> tree, there is no test failure.
> 
> Sorry for the noise, I'll be sure to test on the latest going forward.
> Now to figure out what changed elsewhere to fix this....

That's odd - let me know if you'd like me to take a look...