On 2/24/23 11:32?AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 2/23/23 12:02?PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: >>> Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Having cache entries linked using the hlist format brings no benefit, and >>>> also requires an unnecessary extra pointer address per cache entry. >>>> >>>> Use the internal io_wq_work_node single-linked list for the internal >>>> alloc caches (async_msghdr and async_poll) >>>> >>>> This is required to be able to use KASAN on cache entries, since we do >>>> not need to touch unused (and poisoned) cache entries when adding more >>>> entries to the list. >>>> >>> >>> Looking at this patch, I wonder if it could go in the opposite direction >>> instead, and drop io_wq_work_node entirely in favor of list_head. :) >>> >>> Do we gain anything other than avoiding the backpointer with a custom >>> linked implementation, instead of using the interface available in >>> list.h, that developers know how to use and has other features like >>> poisoning and extra debug checks? >> >> list_head is twice as big, that's the main motivation. This impacts >> memory usage (obviously), but also caches when adding/removing >> entries. > > Right. But this is true all around the kernel. Many (Most?) places > that use list_head don't even need to touch list_head->prev. And > list_head is usually embedded in larger structures where the cost of > the extra pointer is insignificant. I suspect the memory > footprint shouldn't really be the problem. I may be in the minority here in caring deeply about even little details in terms of memory foot print and how many cachelines we touch... Eg if we can embed 8 bytes rather than 16, then why not? Particularly for cases where we may have a lot of these structures. But it's of course always a tradeoff. > This specific patch is extending io_wq_work_node to io_cache_entry, > where the increased size will not matter. In fact, for the cached > structures, the cache layout and memory footprint don't even seem to > change, as io_cache_entry is already in a union larger than itself, that > is not crossing cachelines, (io_async_msghdr, async_poll). True, for the caching case, the member size doesn't matter. At least immediately. Sometimes things are shuffled around and optimized further, and then you may need to find 8 bytes to avoid bloating the struct. > The other structures currently embedding struct io_work_node are > io_kiocb (216 bytes long, per request) and io_ring_ctx (1472 bytes long, > per ring). so it is not like we are saving a lot of memory with a single > linked list. A more compact cache line still makes sense, though, but I > think the only case (if any) where there might be any gain is io_kiocb? Yeah, the ring is already pretty big. It is still handled in cachelines for the bits that matter, so nice to keep them as small for the sections. Maybe bumping it will waste an extra cacheline. Or, more commonly, later additions now end up bumping into the next cacheline rather than still fitting. > I don't severely oppose this patch, of course. But I think it'd be worth > killing io_uring/slist.h entirely in the future instead of adding more > users. I intend to give that approach a try, if there's a way to keep > the size of io_kiocb. At least it's consistent within io_uring, which also means something. I'd be fine with taking a look at such a patch, but let's please keep it outside the scope of this change. -- Jens Axboe
