On 2/12/20 10:11 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/12/20 9:31 AM, Carter Li 李通洲 wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> IOSQE_IO_LINK seems to have very high cost, even greater then io_uring_enter syscall.
>>
>> Test code attached below. The program completes after getting 100000000 cqes.
>>
>> $ gcc test.c -luring -o test0 -g -O3 -DUSE_LINK=0
>> $ time ./test0
>> USE_LINK: 0, count: 100000000, submit_count: 1562500
>> 0.99user 9.99system 0:11.02elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1608maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+72minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> $ gcc test.c -luring -o test1 -g -O3 -DUSE_LINK=1
>> $ time ./test1
>> USE_LINK: 1, count: 100000110, submit_count: 799584
>> 0.83user 19.21system 0:20.90elapsed 95%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1632maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+72minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> As you can see, the `-DUSE_LINK=1` version emits only about half io_uring_submit calls
>> of the other version, but takes twice as long. That makes IOSQE_IO_LINK almost useless,
>> please have a check.
>
> The nop isn't really a good test case, as it doesn't contain any smarts
> in terms of executing a link fast. So it doesn't say a whole lot outside
> of "we could make nop links faster", which is also kind of pointless.
>
> "Normal" commands will work better. Where the link is really a win is if
> the first request needs to go async to complete. For that case, the
> next link can execute directly from that context. This saves an async
> punt for the common case.
Case in point, if I just add the below patch, we're a lot closer:
[root@archlinux liburing]# time test/nop-link 0
Using link: 0
count: 100000000, submit_count: 1562500
real 0m7.934s
user 0m0.740s
sys 0m7.157s
[root@archlinux liburing]# time test/nop-link 1
Using link: 1
count: 100000000, submit_count: 781250
real 0m9.009s
user 0m0.710s
sys 0m8.264s
The links are still a bit slower, which is to be expected as the
nop basically just completes, it doesn't do anything at all and
it never needs to go async.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 9f00f30e1790..d0f645be91cb 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2399,7 +2399,7 @@ static int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
/*
* IORING_OP_NOP just posts a completion event, nothing else.
*/
-static int io_nop(struct io_kiocb *req)
+static int io_nop(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt)
{
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
@@ -2407,7 +2407,7 @@ static int io_nop(struct io_kiocb *req)
return -EINVAL;
io_cqring_add_event(req, 0);
- io_put_req(req);
+ io_put_req_find_next(req, nxt);
return 0;
}
@@ -4355,7 +4355,7 @@ static int io_issue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
switch (req->opcode) {
case IORING_OP_NOP:
- ret = io_nop(req);
+ ret = io_nop(req, nxt);
break;
case IORING_OP_READV:
case IORING_OP_READ_FIXED:
--
Jens Axboe
