From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
Cc: asml.silence@gmail.com, dylany@meta.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, leit@fb.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: Split io_issue_def struct
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:52:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8UseW5sTqu72M2U@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v8lbcwz9.fsf@suse.de>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 05:35:22PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> writes:
>
> > This patch removes some "cold" fields from `struct io_issue_def`.
> >
> > The plan is to keep only highly used fields into `struct io_issue_def`, so,
> > it may be hot in the cache. The hot fields are basically all the bitfields
> > and the callback functions for .issue and .prep.
> >
> > The other less frequently used fields are now located in a secondary and
> > cold struct, called `io_cold_def`.
> >
> > This is the size for the structs:
> >
> > Before: io_issue_def = 56 bytes
> > After: io_issue_def = 24 bytes; io_cold_def = 40 bytes
>
> Does this change have an observable impact in run time? Did it show
> a significant decrease of dcache misses?
I haven't tested it. I expect it might be hard to came up with such test.
A possible test might be running io_uring heavy tests, while adding
enough memory pressure. Doing this in two different instant (A/B test),
might be a unpredicable and the error deviation might hide the benefit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 14:44 [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: Rename struct io_op_def Breno Leitao
2023-01-12 14:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: Split io_issue_def struct Breno Leitao
2023-01-12 20:35 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-01-16 10:52 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2023-01-16 13:55 ` Jens Axboe
2023-01-18 13:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-01-18 13:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: Rename struct io_op_def Pavel Begunkov
2023-01-18 14:39 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y8UseW5sTqu72M2U@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dylany@meta.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krisman@suse.de \
--cc=leit@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.