On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 2:12 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/23 2:03?PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 3/20/23 9:06?AM, 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 -
> >>
> >> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> >> index e1929f6e5a24..7a764e04f309 100644
> >> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> >> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> >> @@ -58,8 +58,12 @@ void io_uring_cmd_done(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
> >> ssize_t ret, ssize_t res2)
> >> smp_store_release(&req->iopoll_completed, 1);
> >> return;
> >> }
> >> - req->io_task_work.func = io_req_task_complete;
> >> - io_req_task_work_add(req);
> >> + if (in_task()) {
> >> + io_req_complete_defer(req);
> >> + } else {
> >> + req->io_task_work.func = io_req_task_complete;
> >> + io_req_task_work_add(req);
> >> + }
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_done);
> >
> > Good point, though I do think we should rework to pass in the flags
> > instead. I'll take a look.
>
> Something like this, totally untested... And this may be more
> interesting than it would appear, because the current:
>
> io_req_complete_post(req, 0);
>
> in io_uring_cmd_done() is passing in that it has the CQ ring locked, but
> that does not look like it's guaranteed? So this is more of a
> correctness thing first and foremost, more so than an optimization.
>
> Hmm?
When zero is passed to io_req_complete_post, it calls
__io_req_complete_post() which takes CQ lock as the first thing.
So the correct thing will happen. Am I missing something?
