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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5DDC432C1 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A2E214AF for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="YqGzRScs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729958AbfIXKJP (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:09:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:41410 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725884AbfIXKJO (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:09:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id s1so1038008pgv.8 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eZzNcc+wvQuzQf2GWcxTSylUxSPYFH1qsBG8DB3c2nY=; b=YqGzRScsb1FbTM5WCrcuiuWh1n0Rbn8sjw0unKF0AgsREOA5eYkIB5EO8cTBWrU8Mo UzydS8VMNZsF+nAINFsnu+7pLqr/jneh3+kAZQsscAp6H6NTjFlaWd83CVpHSvRCpzZZ x9HR9pp09reHZwmivsh1580x0BeKmD7D627MKZdNjGVSarYZN4p1n+H/QuMGpEczLCoo 1+MHrvNwLa7vsPrJh5AZVE3Y7k9pshK5tbFXAaC0CvWCxUUF/15HPGfCyBiQVLJZSl2f rTiVmhhcScE/9pFeus7NH2PZue9f0WQGJGOKp9VS+FZWer5QOHcVCE0XanyzjGney+iB DK5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eZzNcc+wvQuzQf2GWcxTSylUxSPYFH1qsBG8DB3c2nY=; b=NTRbSZw0vkz/FtJcpgq9afHYiYtk67A0eSwCNzwjCdvhWZRp8y/eNs+FboMl87ujig iuu+lyEYU5gAc0FFDHVQmoXSHR4Sif0yW7ET89MeK+bhwkVjkNSecy1PvQtllxscLpKH QSdXbnxUTYYxjFKWmZyAq00Hz2spbAQ/Es+9FIdBaW2M7aHXQp4UyBgdVLm2nN257R/e tiX25XfhEMIS0ewsyjEoRZ7w6uAFoCdBVbUXJXrT1ptc0vHxHmGuY2B88Wrm+qkHIzaz gMQv3Dz8GHCkctgY+o6ZfYDpPSzP5ecIrWx9Y+TnI8yKlMT4+gxI0L0ReQFgG63SHmaX 2kKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqkEx+PJyQE0x0UNafLXD1Ce6/1QvyrhKhcVPTUZiiYQJMV0lg 3SPmQ5iyMZqFvjpdSjTmCNBVS55XWXcXEg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlqchHmVSIE78No20chUn+TpSKqX4ZZfuY2wwCDIiO0RpDdGoDqhrWfTBpuXln1+tHL4Mpnw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:2aca:: with SMTP id q193mr2299446pgq.156.1569319752154; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 03:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:8419:743e:6023:99b1:fa9f:a39c? ([2600:380:8419:743e:6023:99b1:fa9f:a39c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f6sm1368574pga.50.2019.09.24.03.09.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 03:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting To: Pavel Begunkov , Ingo Molnar Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20190923083549.GA42487@gmail.com> <731b2087-7786-5374-68ff-8cba42f0cd68@kernel.dk> <759b9b48-1de3-1d43-3e39-9c530bfffaa0@kernel.dk> <43244626-9cfd-0c0b-e7a1-878363712ef3@gmail.com> <4240453d-2a6a-092f-28a4-523d2f6fc6c1@gmail.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <405d24d1-6f73-0437-e3e9-f862d1437c21@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:09:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4240453d-2a6a-092f-28a4-523d2f6fc6c1@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/24/19 3:20 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > > On 24/09/2019 11:27, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 9/24/19 2:02 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 9/24/19 1:06 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 24/09/2019 02:00, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> I think we can do the same thing, just wrapping the waitqueue in a >>>>>> structure with a count in it, on the stack. Got some flight time >>>>>> coming up later today, let me try and cook up a patch. >>>>> >>>>> Totally untested, and sent out 5 min before departure... But something >>>>> like this. >>>> Hmm, reminds me my first version. Basically that's the same thing but >>>> with macroses inlined. I wanted to make it reusable and self-contained, >>>> though. >>>> >>>> If you don't think it could be useful in other places, sure, we could do >>>> something like that. Is that so? >>> >>> I totally agree it could be useful in other places. Maybe formalized and >>> used with wake_up_nr() instead of adding a new primitive? Haven't looked >>> into that, I may be talking nonsense. >>> >>> In any case, I did get a chance to test it and it works for me. Here's >>> the "finished" version, slightly cleaned up and with a comment added >>> for good measure. >> >> Notes: >> >> This version gets the ordering right, you need exclusive waits to get >> fifo ordering on the waitqueue. >> >> Both versions (yours and mine) suffer from the problem of potentially >> waking too many. I don't think this is a real issue, as generally we >> don't do threaded access to the io_urings. But if you had the following >> tasks wait on the cqring: >> >> [min_events = 32], [min_events = 8], [min_events = 8] >> >> and we reach the io_cqring_events() == threshold, we'll wake all three. >> I don't see a good solution to this, so I suspect we just live with >> until proven an issue. Both versions are much better than what we have >> now. >> > If io_cqring_events() == 8, only the last two would be woken up in both > implementations, as to_wait/threshold is specified per waiter. Isn't it? If io_cqring_events() == 8, then none would be woken in my implementation since the first one will break the wakeup loop. > Agree with waiting, I don't see a good real-life case for that, that > couldn't be done efficiently in userspace. Exactly -- Jens Axboe