Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6eaadad2-d6a6-dfbb-88aa-8ae68af2f89d@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:27:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] io_uring/rsrc: cache struct io_rsrc_node
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
Cc:     io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1680187408.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <7f5eb1b89e8dcf93739607c79bbf7aec1784cbbe.1680187408.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <87cz4p1083.fsf@suse.de>
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87cz4p1083.fsf@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/31/23 15:09, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Add allocation cache for struct io_rsrc_node, it's always allocated and
>> put under ->uring_lock, so it doesn't need any extra synchronisation
>> around caches.
> 
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> I'm curious if you considered using kmem_cache instead of the custom
> cache for this case?  I'm wondering if this provokes visible difference in
> performance in your benchmark.

I didn't try it, but kmem_cache vs kmalloc, IIRC, doesn't bring us
much, definitely doesn't spare from locking, and the overhead
definitely wasn't satisfactory for requests before.

A quick note that I want to further limit the cache size,
IO_ALLOC_CACHE_MAX=512 for nodes doesn't sound great.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov