public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT events
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:26:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200116162630.6r3xc55kdyyq5tvz@steredhat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:00:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/16/20 8:55 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 08:29:07AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> >>> io_uring_poll() sets EPOLLOUT flag if there is space in the
> >>> SQ ring, then we should wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT
> >>> events when we expose the new SQ head to the userspace.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Do you think is better to change the name of 'cq_wait' and 'cq_fasync'?
> >>
> >> I honestly think it'd be better to have separate waits for in/out poll,
> >> the below patch will introduce some unfortunate cacheline traffic
> >> between the submitter and completer side.
> > 
> > Agree, make sense. I'll send a v2 with a new 'sq_wait'.
> > 
> > About fasync, do you think could be useful the POLL_OUT support?
> > In this case, maybe is not simple to have two separate fasync_struct,
> > do you have any advice?
> 
> The fasync should not matter, it's all in the checking of whether the sq
> side has any sleepers. This is rarely going to be the case, so as long
> as we can keep the check cheap, then I think we're fine.

Right.

> 
> Since the use case is mostly single submitter, unless you're doing
> something funky or unusual, you're not going to be needing POLLOUT ever.

The case that I had in mind was with kernel side polling enabled and
a single submitter that can use epoll() to wait free slots in the SQ
ring. (I don't have a test, maybe I can write one...)

> Hence I don't want to add any cost for it, I'd even advocate just doing
> waitqueue_active() perhaps, if we can safely pull it off.

I'll try!

Thanks,
Stefano


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-16 16:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-16 13:49 [PATCH] io_uring: wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT events Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-16 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-16 15:55   ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-16 16:00     ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-16 16:26       ` Stefano Garzarella [this message]
2020-01-16 16:30         ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-16 17:03           ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-23 19:13             ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-23 21:45               ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-24  1:28                 ` 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=20200116162630.6r3xc55kdyyq5tvz@steredhat \
    [email protected] \
    [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