On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/20/21 7:17 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote: > > Here is a revamped series on uring-passthru which is on top of Jens > > "nvme-passthru-wip.2" branch. > > https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=nvme-passthru-wip.2 > > > > This scales much better than before with the addition of following: > > - plugging > > - passthru polling (sync and async; sync part comes from a patch that > > Keith did earlier) > > - bio-cache (this is regardless of irq/polling since we submit/complete in > > task-contex anyway. Currently kicks in when fixed-buffer option is > > also passed, but that's primarily to keep the plumbing simple) > > > > Also the feedback from Christoph (previous fixed-buffer series) is in > > which has streamlined the plumbing. > > > > I look forward to further feedback/comments. > > > > KIOPS(512b) on P5800x looked like this: > > > > QD uring pt uring-poll pt-poll > > 8 538 589 831 902 > > 64 967 1131 1351 1378 > > 256 1043 1230 1376 1429 > > These are nice results! Can you share all the job files or fio > invocations for each of these? I guess it's just two variants, with QD > varied between them? Yes, just two variants with three QD/batch combinations. Here are all the job files for the above data: https://github.com/joshkan/fio/tree/nvme-passthru-wip-polling/pt-perf-jobs > We really (REALLY) should turn the nvme-wip branch into something > coherent, but at least with this we have some idea of an end result and > something that is testable. This looks so much better from the > performance POV than the earlier versions, passthrough _should_ be > faster than non-pt. > It'd be great to know how it performs in your setup. And please let me know how I can help in making things more coherent. -- Joshi
