From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1678181CE2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2024 18:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717007561; cv=none; b=al+9T22IISERJgjZWsGpKGK+hxAOWq+t9z3ZBhPhc7KxwisYTHjmLL/FkCikvxJ7hBWofuRMXkIITtR34IMXYqMH6A9A5Hx5vpIvy6QttCAINct2Kdc6OG0DzQZVrmyFr+KsMEJ5YFdKDHMAvSEG3RmGbipkeI7dALjXS4mkjJA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717007561; c=relaxed/simple; bh=52yBtlsfttwJOD8PKsZF4fgxkYqipcJnrVtlHXgQQYw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KWjzSPRawrbsvQGRgtjZc0OS2MhQz9Mndu6b5DDLdhDdMyEWz+kUUDIoSN0wca1foYxlYd8FGAWbS0rFUtRGX7S5dGOkkskTHl4HGX8PH2Tp9ct6OmbzXhEAdZ/G8yp6YTYcH3d0v8sljb2EkQvSkgyn20BGU9qgcd73VKX81t0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=NWpQHXjd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="NWpQHXjd" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1717007558; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oVayNWdyUAGQz4y/jxiAjETz9WQzUuYKs0dHZ7/y+zE=; b=NWpQHXjdien1t1Cb5XeePUIWtNl3Tf3Jf1ApVYiPlD8DA6rVLLObjhkDSFn87Dz+EKDgYH tzM/3yguxabAbrNXM5plxmcEHkDOO8459EwxyEx2Fb2R+xBkR4aUleLrh/WLLytN9uRZI2 30i3IJvUW8MdMV/jHJ0j7FPgWvmRP2M= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-175-V7me-cd4N32vApkD4oDtuw-1; Wed, 29 May 2024 14:32:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: V7me-cd4N32vApkD4oDtuw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77E829AA384; Wed, 29 May 2024 18:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.39.192.15]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BEA36EC; Wed, 29 May 2024 18:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 14:32:31 -0400 From: Stefan Hajnoczi To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Peter-Jan Gootzen , Jingbo Xu , Yoray Zack , Vivek Goyal , virtualization@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: cleanup request queuing towards virtiofs Message-ID: <20240529183231.GC1203999@fedora.redhat.com> References: <20240529155210.2543295-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6oV0VDCxVhgLbHjS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240529155210.2543295-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 --6oV0VDCxVhgLbHjS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:52:07PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Virtiofs has its own queing mechanism, but still requests are first queued > on fiq->pending to be immediately dequeued and queued onto the virtio > queue. >=20 > The queuing on fiq->pending is unnecessary and might even have some > performance impact due to being a contention point. >=20 > Forget requests are handled similarly. >=20 > Move the queuing of requests and forgets into the fiq->ops->*. > fuse_iqueue_ops are renamed to reflect the new semantics. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi > --- > fs/fuse/dev.c | 159 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > fs/fuse/fuse_i.h | 19 ++---- > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 41 ++++-------- > 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-) This is a little scary but I can't think of a scenario where directly dispatching requests to virtqueues is a problem. Is there someone who can run single and multiqueue virtiofs performance benchmarks? Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi --6oV0VDCxVhgLbHjS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhpWov9P5fNqsNXdanKSrs4Grc8gFAmZXdL8ACgkQnKSrs4Gr c8hpgAf/TbBXZJlqAq5OzMWZIMAbeDhg6QQ7EHTeANq8Vd9mu/AtUuPe52sLxhC7 Jb3pQ1BDzCcAYFhjzpJdpIHgynPqKNiwFc3lTrOE6esYp7IzEVRJzjQRfcm2WbyF vUEUXCkguB5d6SCQ5X1NSgxCK2JFoYHBZBqLE8uPn7ICrWP0Vh8FODufpnVBYOEZ WjMvOaKPiddO2PYBnVRQMBKqDpPST9jxqQYV2hhcKwAW1TGLsN2vZXNtLFq9uGpf UvG+gKHod4zfL4rqOjpSNJKOSi6EIvc2zhcwhOUpnLqkS9UIqSjrqUA1J+UacG7u Q/5yn5AZhYjoB7/MLOPVgORqD7leKA== =+/Z1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6oV0VDCxVhgLbHjS--