On 4/29/22 4:18 AM, Hao Xu wrote: > This is the third 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 I saw these numbers in v2 as well, and I have to admit I don't understand them. Because on the surface, it sure looks like the first set of results (labeled "normal") are better than the second "fixed" set. Am I reading them wrong, or did you transpose them? I think this patch series would benefit from a higher level description of what fixed workers mean in this context. How are they different from the existing workers, and why would it improve things. > things to be done: > - Still need some thinking about the work cancellation Can you expand? What are the challenges with fixed workers and cancelation? > - not very sure IO_WORKER_F_EXIT is safe enough on synchronization > - the iowq hash stuff is not compatible with fixed worker for now We might need to extract the hashing out a bit so it's not as tied to the existing implementation. -- Jens Axboe
