Re: [PATCH v4] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 6/22/21 6:54 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 6/22/21 1:17 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
>> It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns EAGAIN,
>> the data becomes available between that failure and the call to
>> vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler().
>>
>> Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster
>> than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq.
>>
>> Performance improvement testing has been performed with:
>> Single thread, 1 TCP connection receiving a 5 Mbps stream, no sqpoll.
>>
>> 4 measurements have been taken:
>> 1. The time it takes to process a read request when data is already available
>> 2. The time it takes to process by calling twice io_issue_sqe() after vfs_poll() indicated that data was available
>> 3. The time it takes to execute io_queue_async_work()
>> 4. The time it takes to complete a read request asynchronously
>>
>> 2.25% of all the read operations did use the new path.
>>
>> ready data (baseline)
>> avg	3657.94182918628
>> min	580
>> max	20098
>> stddev	1213.15975908162
>>
>> reissue	completion
>> average	7882.67567567568
>> min	2316
>> max	28811
>> stddev	1982.79172973284
>>
>> insert io-wq time
>> average	8983.82276995305
>> min	3324
>> max	87816
>> stddev	2551.60056552038
>>
>> async time completion
>> average	24670.4758861127
>> min	10758
>> max	102612
>> stddev	3483.92416873804
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> On average reissuing the sqe with the patch code is 1.1uSec faster and
>> in the worse case scenario 59uSec faster than placing the request on
>> io-wq
>>
>> On average completion time by reissuing the sqe with the patch code is
>> 16.79uSec faster and in the worse case scenario 73.8uSec faster than
>> async completion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois <olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/io_uring.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>> index fc8637f591a6..5efa67c2f974 100644
>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> 
> [...]
> 
>>  static bool __io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req,
>> @@ -6437,6 +6445,7 @@ static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>  	struct io_kiocb *linked_timeout = io_prep_linked_timeout(req);
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> +issue_sqe:
>>  	ret = io_issue_sqe(req, IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK|IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER);
>>  
>>  	/*
>> @@ -6456,12 +6465,16 @@ static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>  			io_put_req(req);
>>  		}
>>  	} else if (ret == -EAGAIN && !(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT)) {
>> -		if (!io_arm_poll_handler(req)) {
>> +		switch (io_arm_poll_handler(req)) {
>> +		case IO_APOLL_READY:
>> +			goto issue_sqe;
>> +		case IO_APOLL_ABORTED:
>>  			/*
>>  			 * Queued up for async execution, worker will release
>>  			 * submit reference when the iocb is actually submitted.
>>  			 */
>>  			io_queue_async_work(req);
>> +			break;
> 
> Hmm, why there is a new break here? It will miscount @linked_timeout
> if you do that. Every io_prep_linked_timeout() should be matched with
> io_queue_linked_timeout().

Never mind, I said some nonsense and apparently need some coffee


>>  		}
>>  	} else {
>>  		io_req_complete_failed(req, ret);
>>
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov