From: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
Joseph Qi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: implement async hybrid mode for pollable requests
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:34:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
在 2021/10/18 下午7:29, Hao Xu 写道:
> The current logic of requests with IOSQE_ASYNC is first queueing it to
> io-worker, then execute it in a synchronous way. For unbound works like
> pollable requests(e.g. read/write a socketfd), the io-worker may stuck
> there waiting for events for a long time. And thus other works wait in
> the list for a long time too.
> Let's introduce a new way for unbound works (currently pollable
> requests), with this a request will first be queued to io-worker, then
> executed in a nonblock try rather than a synchronous way. Failure of
> that leads it to arm poll stuff and then the worker can begin to handle
> other works.
> The detail process of this kind of requests is:
>
> step1: original context:
> queue it to io-worker
> step2: io-worker context:
> nonblock try(the old logic is a synchronous try here)
> |
> |--fail--> arm poll
> |
> |--(fail/ready)-->synchronous issue
> |
> |--(succeed)-->worker finish it's job, tw
> take over the req
>
> This works much better than the old IOSQE_ASYNC logic in cases where
> unbound max_worker is relatively small. In this case, number of
> io-worker eazily increments to max_worker, new worker cannot be created
> and running workers stuck there handling old works in IOSQE_ASYNC mode.
>
> In my 64-core machine, set unbound max_worker to 20, run echo-server,
> turns out:
> (arguments: register_file, connetion number is 1000, message size is 12
> Byte)
> original IOSQE_ASYNC: 76664.151 tps
> after this patch: 166934.985 tps
>
> Suggested-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
An irrelevant question: why do we do linked timeout logic in
io_wq_submit_work() again regarding that we've already done it in
io_queue_async_work().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-18 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-18 11:29 [PATCH v2 0/2] async hybrid for pollable requests Hao Xu
2021-10-18 11:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: split logic of force_nonblock Hao Xu
2021-10-18 12:13 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-18 12:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-18 13:00 ` Hao Xu
2021-10-18 11:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: implement async hybrid mode for pollable requests Hao Xu
2021-10-18 11:34 ` Hao Xu [this message]
2021-10-18 12:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-18 12:20 ` Hao Xu
2021-10-18 12:31 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] async hybrid " Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-18 12:35 ` Hao Xu
2021-10-18 13:17 ` Hao Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07ecb722-bf42-b785-2064-79221a3362cc@linux.alibaba.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox