Re: [PATCH] aio: convert the ioctx list to radix tree

From: Octavian Purdila
Date: Fri Mar 22 2013 - 19:32:58 EST

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 08:33:19PM +0200, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>> When using a large number of threads performing AIO operations the
>> IOCTX list may get a significant number of entries which will cause
>> significant overhead. For example, when running this 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 we can observe up to
>> 30% CPU time spent by lookup_ioctx:
>> 32.51% [guest.kernel] [g] lookup_ioctx
>> 9.19% [guest.kernel] [g] __lock_acquire.isra.28
>> 4.40% [guest.kernel] [g] lock_release
>> 4.19% [guest.kernel] [g] sched_clock_local
>> 3.86% [guest.kernel] [g] local_clock
>> 3.68% [guest.kernel] [g] native_sched_clock
>> 3.08% [guest.kernel] [g] sched_clock_cpu
>> 2.64% [guest.kernel] [g] lock_release_holdtime.part.11
>> 2.60% [guest.kernel] [g] memcpy
>> 2.33% [guest.kernel] [g] lock_acquired
>> 2.25% [guest.kernel] [g] lock_acquire
>> 1.84% [guest.kernel] [g] do_io_submit
>> This patchs converts the ioctx list to a radix tree. For a performance
>> comparison the above FIO script was run on a 2 sockets 8 core
>> machine. This are the results for the original list based
>> implementation and for the radix tree based implementation:
> The biggest reason the overhead is so high is that the kioctx's
> hlist_node shares a cacheline with the refcount. Did you check what just
> fixing that does? My aio patch series (in akpm's tree) fixes that.

Hi Kent,

Just checked, and I don't see any improvements for this particular workload.

> Also, why are you using so many kioctxs? I can't think any good reason
> why userspace would want to - you really want to use only one or a few
> (potentially one per cpu) so that events can get serviced as soon as a
> worker thread is available.

For servers, 1 kioctx per core can easily translate to 16-32 kioctxes.
And you probably want to oversubscribe the cores, especially since IO
is getting faster these days. So, I think 512 is not such an
outrageously large number of kioctxes.

> Currently there are applications using many kioctxs to work around the
> fact that performance is terrible when you're sharing kioctxs between
> threads - but that's fixed in my aio patch series.
> In fact, we want userspace to be using as few kioctxs as they can so we
> can benefit from batch completion.

I think that using multiple contexts has its uses, with your great
series not for I/O performance anymore :) , but for example for I/O
operations management/grouping. Then, there is the case of existing
applications, it would be nice to have them perform better without
rewriting them. So, I think that this patch is complementary to your
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at