On 01/02/2020 05:10, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/31/20 5:31 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 01/02/2020 01:32, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 01/02/2020 01:22, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 1/31/20 3:15 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> Apart from unrelated first patch, this persues two goals: >>>>> >>>>> 1. start preparing io_uring to move resources handling into >>>>> opcode specific functions >>>>> >>>>> 2. make the first step towards long-standing optimisation ideas >>>>> >>>>> Basically, it makes struct io_submit_state embedded into ctx, so >>>>> easily accessible and persistent, and then plays a bit around that. >>>> >>>> Do you have any perf/latency numbers for this? Just curious if we >>>> see any improvements on that front, cross submit persistence of >>>> alloc caches should be a nice sync win, for example, or even >>>> for peak iops by not having to replenish the pool for each batch. >>>> >>>> I can try and run some here too. >>>> >>> >>> I tested the first version, but my drive is too slow, so it was only nops and >>> hence no offloading. Honestly, there waren't statistically significant results. >>> I'll rerun anyway. >>> >>> I have a plan to reuse it for a tricky optimisation, but thinking twice, I can >>> just stash it until everything is done. That's not the first thing in TODO and >>> will take a while. >>> >> >> I've got numbers, but there is nothing really interesting. Throughput is >> insignificantly better with the patches, but I'd need much more experiments >> across reboots to confirm that. >> >> Let's postpone the patchset for later > > Sounds fine to me, no need to do it unless it's a nice cleanup, and/or > provides some nice improvements. > > It would be great to see the splice stuff revamped, though :-) > Yep, I didn't abandon it. -- Pavel Begunkov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
