From: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
To: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] use rwlock in order to reduce ep_poll_callback() contention
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:01:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <275da18a1d286eabf7c9f6588d66baf4@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73608dd0e5839634966b3b8e03e4b3c9@suse.de>
On 2018-12-17 03:49, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On 2018-12-13 19:13, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Yes, good idea. But frankly I do not want to bloat epoll-wait.c with
> my multi-writers-single-reader test case, because soon epoll-wait.c
> will become unmaintainable with all possible loads and set of
> different options.
>
> Can we have a single, small and separate source for each epoll load?
> Easy to fix, easy to maintain, debug/hack.
Yes completely agree; I was actually thinking along those lines.
>
>> I ran these patches on the 'wait' workload which is a epoll_wait(2)
>> stresser. On a 40-core IvyBridge it shows good performance
>> improvements for increasing number of file descriptors each of the 40
>> threads deals with:
>>
>> 64 fds: +20%
>> 512 fds: +30%
>> 1024 fds: +50%
>>
>> (Yes these are pretty raw measurements ops/sec). Unlike your
>> benchmark, though, there is only single writer thread, and therefore
>> is less ideal to measure optimizations when IO becomes available.
>> Hence it would be nice to also have this.
>
> That's weird. One writer thread does not content with anybody, only
> with
> consumers, so should not be any big difference.
Yeah so the irq optimization patch, which is known to boost numbers on
this microbench, plays an important factor. I just put them all together
when testing.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-17 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-12 11:03 [PATCH 0/3] use rwlock in order to reduce ep_poll_callback() contention Roman Penyaev
2018-12-12 11:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: make sure all elements in ready list are in FIFO order Roman Penyaev
2018-12-13 19:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-12 11:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] epoll: loosen irq safety in ep_poll_callback() Roman Penyaev
2018-12-12 11:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] epoll: use rwlock in order to reduce ep_poll_callback() contention Roman Penyaev
[not found] ` <20181212171348.GA12786@andrea>
2018-12-13 10:13 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-13 11:19 ` Andrea Parri
2018-12-13 12:19 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-13 18:13 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-17 11:49 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-17 18:01 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
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=275da18a1d286eabf7c9f6588d66baf4@suse.de \
--to=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rpenyaev@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).