On 04.06.25 15:28, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
Make fuse_process_request() a coroutine_fn (fuse_co_process_request()) and have read_from_fuse_fd() launch it inside of a newly created coroutine instead of running it synchronously. This way, we can process requests in parallel.These are the benchmark results, compared to (a) the original results with libfuse, and (b) the results after switching away from libfuse (i.e. before this patch): file: (vs. libfuse / vs. no libfuse) read: seq aio: 120.6k ±1.1k (+ 53 % / + 58 %) rand aio: 113.3k ±5.9k (+188 % / +325 %) seq sync: 52.4k ±0.4k (+ 61 % / + 10 %) rand sync: 10.4k ±0.4k (+ 6 % / + 3 %) write: seq aio: 79.8k ±0.8k (+ 29 % / + 37 %) rand aio: 79.0k ±0.6k (+ 29 % / + 36 %) seq sync: 41.5k ±0.3k (+ 49 % / + 15 %) rand sync: 41.4k ±0.2k (+ 50 % / + 15 %) null: read: seq aio: 266.1k ±1.5k (+ 24 % / - 1 %) rand aio: 264.1k ±2.5k (+ 24 % / ± 0 %) seq sync: 135.6k ±3.2k (+ 50 % / + 1 %) rand sync: 134.7k ±3.0k (+ 50 % / + 2 %) write: seq aio: 281.0k ±1.8k (+ 38 % / + 2 %) rand aio: 288.1k ±6.1k (+ 43 % / + 6 %) seq sync: 142.2k ±3.1k (+ 65 % / + 9 %) rand sync: 141.1k ±2.9k (+ 66 % / + 11 %) So for non-AIO cases (and the null driver, which does not yield), there is little change; but for file AIO, results greatly improve, resolving the performance issue we saw before (when switching away from libfuse). Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
Sorry, I should have dropped the R-b :/ There are non-trivial changes to this patch from v1. Hanna
Signed-off-by: Hanna Czenczek <hre...@redhat.com> --- block/export/fuse.c | 194 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
