Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] improvements for multi-shot poll requests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/24/21 11:38 PM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> Echo_server codes can be clone from:
> https://codeup.openanolis.cn/codeup/storage/io_uring-echo-server.git
> branch is xiaoguangwang/io_uring_multishot. There is a simple HOWTO
> in this repository.
> 
> Usage:
> In server: port 10016, 1000 connections, packet size 16 bytes, and
> enable fixed files.
>   taskset -c 10 io_uring_echo_server_multi_shot  -f -p 10016 -n 1000 -l 16
> 
> In client:
>   taskset -c 13,14,15,16 ./echo -addr 11.238.147.21:10016 -n 1000 -size 16
> 
> Before this patchset, the tps is like below:
> 1:15:53 req: 1430425, req/s: 286084.693
> 11:15:58 req: 1426021, req/s: 285204.079
> 11:16:03 req: 1416761, req/s: 283352.146
> 11:16:08 req: 1417969, req/s: 283165.637
> 11:16:13 req: 1424591, req/s: 285349.915
> 11:16:18 req: 1418706, req/s: 283738.725
> 11:16:23 req: 1411988, req/s: 282399.052
> 11:16:28 req: 1419097, req/s: 283820.477
> 11:16:33 req: 1417816, req/s: 283563.262
> 11:16:38 req: 1422461, req/s: 284491.702
> 11:16:43 req: 1418176, req/s: 283635.327
> 11:16:48 req: 1414525, req/s: 282905.276
> 11:16:53 req: 1415624, req/s: 283124.140
> 11:16:58 req: 1426435, req/s: 284970.486
> 
> with this patchset:
> 2021/09/24 11:10:01 start to do client
> 11:10:06 req: 1444979, req/s: 288995.300
> 11:10:11 req: 1442559, req/s: 288511.689
> 11:10:16 req: 1427253, req/s: 285450.390
> 11:10:21 req: 1445236, req/s: 288349.853
> 11:10:26 req: 1423949, req/s: 285480.941
> 11:10:31 req: 1445304, req/s: 289060.815
> 11:10:36 req: 1441036, req/s: 288207.119
> 11:10:41 req: 1441117, req/s: 288220.695
> 11:10:46 req: 1441451, req/s: 288292.731
> 11:10:51 req: 1438801, req/s: 287759.157
> 11:10:56 req: 1433227, req/s: 286646.338
> 11:11:01 req: 1438307, req/s: 287661.577> 
> about 1.3% tps improvements.

In the spirit of moving this one along, I've applied this series. Still a few
things we can do on top, but I don't think that should hold it back. If you
planned on sending an update to inline that check again just do it on top
of the current tree.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux