On 5/31/22 2:55 AM, Hao Xu wrote: > On 5/31/22 16:46, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/31/22 1:05 AM, Hao Xu wrote: >>> On 5/15/22 21:12, Hao Xu wrote: >>>> From: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> This is the second version of fixed worker implementation. >>>> Wrote a nop test program to test it, 3 fixed-workers VS 3 normal workers. >>>> normal workers: >>>> ./run_nop_wqe.sh nop_wqe_normal 200000 100 3 1-3 >>>> time spent: 10464397 usecs IOPS: 1911242 >>>> time spent: 9610976 usecs IOPS: 2080954 >>>> time spent: 9807361 usecs IOPS: 2039284 >>>> >>>> fixed workers: >>>> ./run_nop_wqe.sh nop_wqe_fixed 200000 100 3 1-3 >>>> time spent: 17314274 usecs IOPS: 1155116 >>>> time spent: 17016942 usecs IOPS: 1175299 >>>> time spent: 17908684 usecs IOPS: 1116776 >>>> >>>> About 2x improvement. From perf result, almost no acct->lock contension. >>>> Test program: https://github.com/HowHsu/liburing/tree/fixed_worker >>>> liburing/test/nop_wqe.c >>>> >>>> v3->v4: >>>> - make work in fixed worker's private worfixed worker >>>> - tweak the io_wqe_acct struct to make it clearer >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jens and Pavel, >>> Any comments on this series? There are two coding style issue and I'm >>> going to send v5, before this I'd like to get some comment if there is >>> any. >> >> I'll try to find some time to review it, doing a conference this week. > > No worries. > >> Rebasing on the current for-5.20/io_uring branch would be a good idea >> anyway. > > I'll do that. When you do, most/all patches also have: From: Hao Xu <haoxu.linux@xxxxxxxxx> From: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> which is a bit confusing, so probably choose one and go with that :-) -- Jens Axboe
