On 12/11/18 11:02 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:21:52PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>> I'm going to submit this version formally. If you're interested in
>>> converting the ioctx_table to xarray, you can do that separately from a
>>> security fix. I would include a performance analysis with that patch,
>>> though. The idea of using a radix tree for the ioctx table was
>>> discarded due to performance reasons--see commit db446a08c23d5 ("aio:
>>> convert the ioctx list to table lookup v3"). I suspect using the xarray
>>> will perform similarly.
>>
>> There's a big difference between Octavian's patch and mine. That patch
>> indexed into the radix tree by 'ctx_id' directly, which was pretty
>> much guaranteed to exhibit some close-to-worst-case behaviour from the
>> radix tree due to IDs being sparsely assigned. My patch uses the ring
>> ID which _we_ assigned, and so is nicely behaved, being usually a very
>> small integer.
>
> OK, good to know. I obviously didn't look too closely at the two.
>
>> What performance analysis would you find compelling? Octavian's original
>> fio script:
>>
>>> rw=randrw; size=256k ;directory=/mnt/fio; ioengine=libaio; iodepth=1
>>> blocksize=1024; numjobs=512; thread; loops=100
>>>
>>> on an EXT2 filesystem mounted on top of a ramdisk
>>
>> or something else?
>
> I think the most common use case is a small number of ioctx-s, so I'd
> like to see that use case not regress (that should be easy, right?).
> Kent, what were the tests you were using when doing this work? Jens,
> since you're doing performance work in this area now, are there any
> particular test cases you care about?
I can give it a spin, ioctx lookup is in the fast path, and for "classic"
aio we do it twice for each IO...
--
Jens Axboe
