On 2/24/20 7:14 PM, Carter Li 李通洲 wrote: >> 2020年2月25日 上午8:39，Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： >> >> I've got curious about performance of the idea of having only 1 CQE per link >> (for the failed or last one). Tested it with a quick dirty patch doing >> submit-and-reap of a nops-link (patched for inline execution). >> >> 1) link size: 100 >> old: 206 ns per nop >> new: 144 ns per nop >> >> 2) link size: 10 >> old: 234 ns per nop >> new: 181 ns per nop >> >> 3) link size: 10, FORCE_ASYNC >> old: 667 ns per nop >> new: 569 ns per nop >> >> >> The patch below breaks sequences, linked_timeout and who knows what else. >> The first one requires synchronisation/atomic, so it's a bit in the way. I've >> been wondering, whether IOSQE_IO_DRAIN is popular and how much it's used. We can >> try to find tradeoff or even disable it with this feature. > > Hello Pavel, > > I still think flags tagged on sqes could be a better choice, which > gives users an ability to deside if they want to ignore the cqes, not > only for links, but also for normal sqes. > > In addition, boxed cqes couldn’t resolve the issue of > IORING_IO_TIMEOUT. I would tend to agree, and it'd be trivial to just set the flag on whatever SQEs in the chain you don't care about. Or even an individual SQE, though that's probably a bit more of a reach in terms of use case. Maybe nop with drain + ignore? In any case it's definitely more flexible. -- Jens Axboe
