From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C37D2E9F0 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 814C96B0085; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7C4596B0088; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:10:33 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 664326B0089; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:10:33 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486386B0085 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC97121987 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:10:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82773997950.25.A469783 Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F0940017 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf01.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.s=20230601 header.b="UdvGqYN/"; spf=pass (imf01.hostedemail.com: domain of axboe@kernel.dk designates 209.85.210.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=axboe@kernel.dk; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1731334143; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=RR8G4tGz1/ZWQm/cJgyX8Guo+mbUwgdFHXxMj5CZNcA=; b=A5+NQmPwWV1eFRpiKzLIZGhRlj3TRWVC5F8JCuW8gsYv0IhJZ0KNDRLqaSDnddvK6kc0e4 VGrX9X7c7QSZspr9A8MuRndjgHQ/Dg704f6NydpC/Nio9j2LwAT669Gnd+KrZUAykD7asV Txve8gqs5SOZ6pQzWQ3K77+xMKGn5r0= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1731334143; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=IiylKIYgJVTTnFdFZsUi9uml7+Mqfw+gzpCJSTmnkPZS5aXh1EI5y+Wz2WeRrsP4+R2+yZ 0qW/TdQAOXmLCyQ4Wc+BoT9sB6LORnVK1xpSNCd3uTWONlbYIP5K8mR1wvk2bv1AZiwcaE sWONF1Lahq+qRw8cLAsqr7WUnXBQpQE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf01.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.s=20230601 header.b="UdvGqYN/"; spf=pass (imf01.hostedemail.com: domain of axboe@kernel.dk designates 209.85.210.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=axboe@kernel.dk; dmarc=none Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-71811c7eb8dso2239049a34.0 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:10:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1731334229; x=1731939029; darn=kvack.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RR8G4tGz1/ZWQm/cJgyX8Guo+mbUwgdFHXxMj5CZNcA=; b=UdvGqYN/j0THVk0LYVO2KPthzbiFR7zZpR2eM7n+vuLbFNwISxUYytUdZQM2qb0b3M cRzpA48/znobAX/pBtN4uDPw3ubR+ReUX7/YT5cm+Dqsh1UHIJ37nOXv1qt26Q720UC8 5OqEK6k0v3JDEJ+mQkvvTxz0zCW9f1pKbN5IVOUQK2JevGR/qv+s8CwR6gEfgtH7+F61 2loK+ws/PJQSRdwj8Vz1af7UDo5oX4O7dCVqjEmbXL2qg+PDQsFmjfJQ9JbL1APGoyVe d3Ff67EyNOUhRwZIW0kbLerz0DznJS0R414o/nXa/kgt8MDdk2lTRQwwFH55Ew/Ccv/l vK9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731334229; x=1731939029; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RR8G4tGz1/ZWQm/cJgyX8Guo+mbUwgdFHXxMj5CZNcA=; b=B1MfDK9t/RFeAn2opx4Own5EIxay0FsVDmuDW2GNXME6ETR4uzif9IktXrfIIfiQXv 2T09LsybWf1sEb5e8+iWCHa3RW7tHlnnwoD/wwUDriW0X06j9nKdEcfiERkI8OmRDPlA dIVC/t8JFpmct7XVGCxBQOU7GT3VSPXzczGP/YEF+OwYsVuf9p6F9xgtFnSLUss+ZaSF F+AjtYxpQCydJgyjSyonLaYHY9KxM4UkSb5p2bZiw3QvIqYenYFt/RMCaozqHYdt2qG3 d6nvGbVD0CIkZNetFR4SU9wiVhI68jPHV5gDXiUZhf8MyuCtv2aZX3YDwR7zBKL3NaSN uwyg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVDzoDIHmEjUisPf8SSMm5iB8mv7AJjo7liB4x44bMQV43Bhdu2+BpTtCem2qgXCDRgKbtcf+hB1Q==@kvack.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwCOXZQHnYs+MBIzp4ZtfeerYrwF/e/olkTn8YBdTZcE19Gk+L+ B0pdm3UzqxiyduN9IThrrvBjyJhUn/agb48yIxr9yFs0CaL1EcK5vPrjkBccDIQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH/bAmex7oAGDPGL0QoO97Ag/PQKboG/Z+2TurnDxMOC7Dm6AqazaeLI4frZAHmUiSqsXNYwA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:6509:b0:718:9989:efac with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-71a1c23c804mr10236365a34.18.1731334229599; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([96.43.243.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 46e09a7af769-71a1081078fsm2259797a34.25.2024.11.11.06.10.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:10:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42d612bc-cd3e-46cf-b8d3-50b7c01a9b93@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:10:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] fs: add read support for RWF_UNCACHED To: Stefan Metzmacher , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, clm@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20241108174505.1214230-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20241108174505.1214230-9-axboe@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Stat-Signature: p17shtqfn4hrdraex4b58mht8neijsn4 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 21F0940017 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1731334198-106781 X-HE-Meta: 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 ycYPm4RZ vPOwxWFQ7dxaYDf82kCVyWkByIRMfaeL4Ax1i8MXMOJdFyfUdqLXlo3+y+Z8X+L80lNrD9gb1hMOIyWGzXklLD1va9YBtSzjTIatczBIPvhpdRgteEl30nzUJwXhj4hsBWJoj4T9zElUVwyTbh3EXkjpk47623C2Yu8tGVqHseophXXbIi2DprWVw2USl8i1HWMZ5WFkam5m+F8i3088FRD7tylZQ9LY1/0vbwBnJfDXUp2ZNn3nEr9kv5uYSMrzCj2yT4qBr0o9qAE6lKITi2hV56la1beW94mrnFym2Jb1iRgV6pZXn7Hez5cMf+rjZ5TCjYU6g0roHQbrohudKWxaiNq8OMqHrShXKQI/tKwagEH6EDGiW/t7ADxxl6e7ekRDQrBT6eACzpQM= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 11/11/24 6:04 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: > Hi Jens, > >> If the same test case is run with RWF_UNCACHED set for the buffered read, >> the output looks as follows: >> >> Reading bs 65536, uncached 0 >> 1s: 153144MB/sec >> 2s: 156760MB/sec >> 3s: 158110MB/sec >> 4s: 158009MB/sec >> 5s: 158043MB/sec >> 6s: 157638MB/sec >> 7s: 157999MB/sec >> 8s: 158024MB/sec >> 9s: 157764MB/sec >> 10s: 157477MB/sec >> 11s: 157417MB/sec >> 12s: 157455MB/sec >> 13s: 157233MB/sec >> 14s: 156692MB/sec >> >> which is just chugging along at ~155GB/sec of read performance. Looking >> at top, we see: >> >> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND >> 7961 root 20 0 267004 0 0 S 3180 0.0 5:37.95 uncached >> 8024 axboe 20 0 14292 4096 0 R 1.0 0.0 0:00.13 top >> >> where just the test app is using CPU, no reclaim is taking place outside >> of the main thread. Not only is performance 65% better, it's also using >> half the CPU to do it. > > Do you have numbers of similar code using O_DIRECT just to > see the impact of the memcpy from the page cache to the userspace > buffer... I don't, but I can surely generate those. I didn't consider them that interesting for this comparison which is why I didn't do them, O_DIRECT reads for bigger blocks sizes (or even smaller block sizes, if using io_uring + registered buffers) will definitely have lower overhead than uncached and buffered IO. Copying 160GB/sec isn't free :-) For writes it's a bit more complicated to do an apples to apples comparison, as uncached IO isn't synchronous like O_DIRECT is. It only kicks off the IO, doesn't wait for it. -- Jens Axboe