On 3/20/23 7:54?PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:39:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/20/23 5:35?PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 08:36:15PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 8:51?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is similar to what we do on the non-passthrough read/write side,
>>>>> and helps take advantage of the completion batching we can do when we
>>>>> post CQEs via task_work. On top of that, this avoids a uring_lock
>>>>> grab/drop for every completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the normal peak IRQ based testing, this increases performance in
>>>>> my testing from ~75M to ~77M IOPS, or an increase of 2-3%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>>> index 2e4c483075d3..b4fba5f0ab0d 100644
>>>>> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>>> @@ -45,18 +45,21 @@ static inline void io_req_set_cqe32_extra(struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>>> void io_uring_cmd_done(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd, ssize_t ret, ssize_t res2)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(ioucmd);
>>>>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>>> req_set_fail(req);
>>>>>
>>>>> io_req_set_res(req, ret, 0);
>>>>> - if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_CQE32)
>>>>> + if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_CQE32)
>>>>> io_req_set_cqe32_extra(req, res2, 0);
>>>>> - if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL)
>>>>> + if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL) {
>>>>> /* order with io_iopoll_req_issued() checking ->iopoll_complete */
>>>>> smp_store_release(&req->iopoll_completed, 1);
>>>>> - else
>>>>> - io_req_complete_post(req, 0);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + req->io_task_work.func = io_req_task_complete;
>>>>> + io_req_task_work_add(req);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Since io_uring_cmd_done itself would be executing in task-work often
>>>> (always in case of nvme), can this be further optimized by doing
>>>> directly what this new task-work (that is being set up here) would
>>>> have done?
>>>> Something like below on top of your patch -
>>>
>>> But we have io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task() already, just wondering why
>>> not let driver decide if explicit running in task-work is taken?
>>
>> Because it's currently broken, see my patch from earlier today.
>
> OK, got it, just miss your revised patch.
>
> Then I guess your patch needs to split into one bug fix(for backporting) on
> io_uring_cmd_done() and one optimization?
Yep, I think the backport fix patch actually takes care of most of it.
So it'll just be a tweak on top, if anything. I'll send it out shortly
so we can get it into 6.3.
--
Jens Axboe
