[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7263c088-22f5-d125-cf80-5ebbd9d110e5@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 12:05:13 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfd: convert to using ->write_iter()
On 5/3/21 12:02 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:57:08AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/3/21 10:12 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Jens Axboe
>>>> Sent: 03 May 2021 15:58
>>>>
>>>> Had a report on writing to eventfd with io_uring is slower than it
>>>> should be, and it's the usual case of if a file type doesn't support
>>>> ->write_iter(), then io_uring cannot rely on IOCB_NOWAIT being honored
>>>> alongside O_NONBLOCK for whether or not this is a non-blocking write
>>>> attempt. That means io_uring will punt the operation to an io thread,
>>>> which will slow us down unnecessarily.
>>>>
>>>> Convert eventfd to using fops->write_iter() instead of fops->write().
>>>
>>> Won't this have a measurable performance degradation on normal
>>> code that does write(event_fd, &one, 4);
>>
>> If ->write_iter() or ->read_iter() is much slower than the non-iov
>> versions, then I think we have generic issues that should be solved.
>
> We do!
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210107151125.GB5270@casper.infradead.org/
> is one thread on it. There have been others.
But then we really must get that fixed, imho ->read() and ->write()
should go away, and if the iter variants are 10% slower, then that should
get fixed up.
I'll go over that thread.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists