From: axboe@kernel.dk (Jens Axboe)
Subject: RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:15:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130624071544.GR9422@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130623100920.GA19021@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 23 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I'm wondering why this makes such a performance difference.
They key ingredient here is simply not going to sleep, only to get an
IRQ and get woken up very shortly again. NAPI and similar approaches
work great for high IOPS cases, where you maintain a certain depth of
IO. For lower queue depth or sync IO (like Willy is running here),
nothing beats the pure app driven poll from a latency perspective. I've
seen plenty of systems where the power management is also so aggressive,
that you manage to enter lower C states very quickly and that then of
course makes things even worse. Intelligent polling would make that less
of a problem.
Willy, I think the general design is fine, hooking in via the bdi is the
only way to get back to the right place from where you need to sleep.
Some thoughts:
- This should be hooked in via blk-iopoll, both of them should call into
the same driver hook for polling completions.
- It needs to be more intelligent in when you want to poll and when you
want regular irq driven IO.
- With the former note, the app either needs to opt in (and hence
willingly sacrifice CPU cycles of its scheduling slice) or it needs to
be nicer in when it gives up and goes back to irq driven IO.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-24 7:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-20 20:17 RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-23 10:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-23 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-06-24 7:17 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-25 0:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-06-25 3:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 13:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-06-25 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-24 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-25 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 7:07 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-06-25 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-27 18:10 ` Rik van Riel
2013-06-23 22:14 ` David Ahern
2013-06-24 8:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-24 7:15 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2013-06-24 8:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-25 3:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2013-06-25 14:55 ` Jens Axboe
2013-06-27 18:42 ` Rik van Riel
2013-07-04 1:13 ` Shaohua Li
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=20130624071544.GR9422@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
/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).