linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io_uring/rsrc: send exact nr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ed32b40-47ee-43f8-b3e3-88fdc6ca60fa@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:19:33 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
 Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: gost.dev@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring/rsrc: send exact nr_segs for fixed buffer

On 4/15/25 11:44 PM, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> Sending exact nr_segs, avoids bio split check and processing in
> block layer, which takes around 5%[1] of overall CPU utilization.
> 
> In our setup, we see overall improvement of IOPS from 7.15M to 7.65M [2]
> and 5% less CPU utilization.
> 
> [1]
>      3.52%  io_uring         [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] bio_split_rw_at
>      1.42%  io_uring         [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] bio_split_rw
>      0.62%  io_uring         [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] bio_submit_split
> 
> [2]
> sudo taskset -c 0,1 ./t/io_uring -b512 -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2
> -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1

This must be a regression, do you know which block/io_uring side commit
caused the splits to be done for fixed buffers?

> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
> ---
>  io_uring/rsrc.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/io_uring/rsrc.c b/io_uring/rsrc.c
> index b36c8825550e..6fd3a4a85a9c 100644
> --- a/io_uring/rsrc.c
> +++ b/io_uring/rsrc.c
> @@ -1096,6 +1096,9 @@ static int io_import_fixed(int ddir, struct iov_iter *iter,
>  			iter->iov_offset = offset & ((1UL << imu->folio_shift) - 1);
>  		}
>  	}
> +	iter->nr_segs = (iter->bvec->bv_offset + iter->iov_offset +
> +		iter->count + ((1UL << imu->folio_shift) - 1)) /
> +		(1UL << imu->folio_shift);

	iter->nr_segs = (iter->bvec->bv_offset + iter->iov_offset +
		iter->count + ((1UL << imu->folio_shift) - 1)) >> imu->folio_shift;

to avoid a division, seems worthwhile?

-- 
Jens Axboe