Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: switch local task_work to a mpscq

On 6/15/26 11:55 AM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 8:11?AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/12/26 6:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/11/26 11:24 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 7:23?PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/26 7:14 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>>>>> This is great stuff! I had also observed these hotspots on a ublk
>>>>>> workload. Since incoming ublk requests post task work to the ublk
>>>>>> server's io_urings and completed ublk requests post task work to the
>>>>>> client's io_urings, there is significant cross-CPU contention on the
>>>>>> task work queues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you like it! Once I post v2 tomorrow, perhaps you can try and run
>>>>> some tests with and without and see how it does for you?
>>>>
>>>> Haven't tested v2 yet, but v1 shows a 4% IOPS improvement on a ublk
>>>> 4-KB read workload. The workload has 8 CPUs (unpaired hypertwins)
>>>> running fio with io_uring submitting I/O to the ublk devices and 32
>>>> ublk server CPUs (paired hypertwins) servicing the requests, achieving
>>>> around 4M IOPS. Both the client and server CPUs look completely busy.
>>>
>>> That's a pretty nice improvement! Would be curious to hear what v2 looks
>>> like.
> 
> Looks the same as v1, which makes sense as both the client and server
> are using IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN.

OK, sounds good.

> I did observe fio seem to get stuck forever on one out of the 85 or so
> runs, though. I'm a little concerned there might be a missing wakeup.
> It was using the default iodepth_batch_complete_min=1 (waiting for
> io_uring completions) and IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN.

There's a bug in v2 where it can get missed, the in-tree code should
have that fixed. It was the atomic_dec_and_test() and
atomic_try_cmpxchg() in io_req_local_work_add() racing.

>> And here's some more stuff on top you might find interesting. For a
>> 6 NVMe drive test, it drops my task work usage from top-of-profiles
>> to ~2%.
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux.git/log/?h=io_uring-tw-mpscq-batch
>>
>> The patches sit on top of the io_uring-tw-mpscq branch.
> 
> Yeah there are some interesting ideas there.
> 
> The ublk server isn't using UBLK_F_BATCH_IO, so it unfortunately
> wouldn't benefit from the task work batching for
> UBLK_U_IO_COMMIT_IO_CMDS. The batching would probably need to be
> scoped to the whole io_submit_sqes() in order to allow batching across
> the multiple UBLK_U_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ commands. I'm also not
> sure about the claim that __ublk_walk_cmd_buf() won't sleep;
> ublk_batch_commit_io() calls io_buffer_unregister_bvec(), which could
> sleep depending on the io_uring issue_flags.

It's very much just a POC series of things... I suspect to get the
benefit of it, we'd need a bit of refactoring and reworking first. It
was more to get the idea out/across, not going anywhere right now.

> The NVMe passthrough task work batching could definitely reduce
> contention on the task work queue. I'll run a perf test.

Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe