From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: support multiple rings to share same poll thread by specifying same cpu
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 20:00:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
hi,
> On 10/20/20 2:23 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>> We have already supported multiple rings to share one same poll thread
>> by passing IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ, but it's not that convenient to use.
>> IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ needs users to ensure that a parent ring instance
>> has already existed, that means it will require app to regulate the
>> creation oder between uring instances.
>>
>> Currently we can make this a bit simpler, for those rings which will
>> have SQPOLL enabled and are willing to be bound to one same cpu, add a
>> capability that these rings can share one poll thread by specifying
>> a new IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU flag, then we have 3 cases
>> 1, IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ: if user specifies this flag, we'll always
>> try to attach this ring to an existing ring's corresponding poll thread,
>> no matter whether IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF or IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU is
>> set.
>> 2, IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF and IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU are both enabled,
>> for this case, we'll create a single poll thread to be shared by these
>> rings, and this poll thread is bound to a fixed cpu.
>> 3, for any other cases, we'll just create one new poll thread for the
>> corresponding ring.
>>
>> And for case 2, don't need to regulate creation oder of multiple uring
>> instances, we use a mutex to synchronize creation, for example, say five
>> rings which all have IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU
>> enabled, and are willing to be bound same cpu, one ring that gets the
>> mutex lock will create one poll thread, the other four rings will just
>> attach themselves the previous created poll thread once they get lock
>> successfully.
>>
>> To implement above function, define a percpu io_sq_data array:
>> static struct io_sq_data __percpu *percpu_sqd;
>> When IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF and IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU are both enabled,
>> we will use struct io_uring_params' sq_thread_cpu to locate corresponding
>> sqd, and use this sqd to save poll thread info.
>
> Do you have any test results?
>
> Not quite clear to me, but if IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU is set, I think
> it should always imply IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ in the sense that it would
> not make sense to have more than one poller thread that's bound to a
> single CPU, for example.
>
>> @@ -6814,8 +6819,17 @@ static int io_sqe_files_unregister(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void io_put_sq_data(struct io_sq_data *sqd)
>> +static void io_put_sq_data(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_sq_data *sqd)
>> {
>> + int percpu_sqd = 0;
>> +
>> + if ((ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF) &&
>> + (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL_PERCPU))
>> + percpu_sqd = 1;
>> +
>> + if (percpu_sqd)
>> + mutex_lock(&sqd->percpu_sq_lock);
>> +
>> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&sqd->refs)) {
>> /*
>> * The park is a bit of a work-around, without it we get
>
> For this, and the setup, you should make it dynamic. Hence don't
> allocate the percpu data etc until someone asks for it, and when the
> last user of it goes away, it should go away as well.
>
> That would make the handling of it identical to what we currently have,
> and no need to special case any of this like you do above.
I had thought I could improve codes according to your suggestions, but seems that
it couldn't do that. For the percpu sqd, I need to use a global mutex to serialize
the io_uring instance creation order. Once a task gets this lock, if there isn't sqd
bound to specified cpu, it'll allocate sqd data, create poll thread, and both operations
need to be atomic, so I need to handle percpu sqd a little specially.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-02 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-20 8:23 [PATCH 0/2] improve SQPOLL handling Xiaoguang Wang
2020-10-20 8:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: refactor io_sq_thread() handling Xiaoguang Wang
2020-10-27 16:56 ` Jens Axboe
2020-10-20 8:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: support multiple rings to share same poll thread by specifying same cpu Xiaoguang Wang
2020-10-27 17:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-01 14:22 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-11-02 12:00 ` Xiaoguang Wang [this message]
2020-10-27 13:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] improve SQPOLL handling Xiaoguang Wang
2020-10-27 13:48 ` Jens Axboe
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=172a877f-e182-e9f9-5ff3-a8f7dfa5d6dd@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