Message-ID: <7bceab46-f4cd-3064-ff9e-1e64b18a901b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:31:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] optimise local-tw task resheduling
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1678474375.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <9250606d-4998-96f6-aeaf-a5904d7027e3@kernel.dk>
 <ee962f58-1074-0480-333b-67b360ea8b87@gmail.com>
 <c81c971e-3e00-0767-3158-d712208f15e9@gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <c81c971e-3e00-0767-3158-d712208f15e9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/11/23 1:53?PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 3/11/23 20:45, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 3/11/23 17:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 3/10/23 12:04?PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> io_uring extensively uses task_work, but when a task is waiting
>>>> for multiple CQEs it causes lots of rescheduling. This series
>>>> is an attempt to optimise it and be a base for future improvements.
>>>>
>>>> For some zc network tests eventually waiting for a portion of
>>>> buffers I've got 10x descrease in the number of context switches,
>>>> which reduced the CPU consumption more than twice (17% -> 8%).
>>>> It also helps storage cases, while running fio/t/io_uring against
>>>> a low performant drive it got 2x descrease of the number of context
>>>> switches for QD8 and ~4 times for QD32.
>>>>
>>>> Not for inclusion yet, I want to add an optimisation for when
>>>> waiting for 1 CQE.
>>>
>>> Ran this on the usual peak benchmark, using IRQ. IOPS is around ~70M for
>>> that, and I see context rates of around 8.1-8.3M/sec with the current
>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> Applied the two patches, but didn't see much of a change? Performance is
>>> about the same, and cx rate ditto. Confused... As you probably know,
>>> this test waits for 32 ios at the time.
>>
>> If I'd to guess it already has perfect batching, for which case
>> the patch does nothing. Maybe it's due to SSD coalescing +
>> small ro I/O + consistency and small latencies of Optanes,
>> or might be on the scheduling and the kernel side to be slow
>> to react.
> 
> And if that's that, I have to note that it's quite a sterile
> case, the last time I asked the usual batching we're currently
> getting for networking cases is 1-2.

I can definitely see this being very useful for the more
non-deterministic cases where "completions" come in more sporadically.
But for the networking case, if this is eg receives, you'd trigger the
wakeup anyway to do the actual receive? And then the cqe posting doesn't
trigger another wakeup.

-- 
Jens Axboe