[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8UseW5sTqu72M2U@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:52:41 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Cc: asml.silence@...il.com, dylany@...a.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, leit@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: Split io_issue_def struct
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 05:35:22PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists