On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 00:53, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I mostly meant worker based AIO, yes. I haven't checked how accurately these > > are kept for io_uring. I would hope they are... > > It does look like it is tracked.
nice! > > The thing is that you'd often get completely misleading stats. Some of the > > IO > > will still be done by the backend itself, so there will be a non-zero > > value. But it will be a significant undercount, because the asynchronously > > executed IO won't be tracked (if worker mode is used). Yeah, makes sense. Like I said, I would be completely fine with not showing these numbers at all/setting them to 0 for setups where we cannot easily get useful numbers (and this bgworker AIO would be one of those setups). > Independent to of this, it's probably not good that we're tracking shared > buffer hits after io combining, if I interpret this correctly... That looks to > be an issue in master, not just the AIO branch. You mean that e.g. a combined IO for 20 blocks still sounds only as 1 "shared read"? Yeah, that sounds like a bug.