* [PATCHSET v2 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance @ 2024-03-29 20:09 Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring Hi, MSG_RING rolls its own task_work handling, which there's really no need for. Rather, it should use the generic io_uring infrastructure for this. Add a helper for remote execution, and switch over MSG_RING to use it. This both cleans up the code, and improves performance of this opcode considerably. Changes since v1: - Only pass in ctx, not both ctx and task (Pavel) - Fix io_req_task_work_add_remote() not using passed in 'ctx' for flags check - Get rid of unneeded references on the io_kiocb io_uring/io_uring.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ io_uring/msg_ring.c | 34 ++++++++++------------------------ 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-29 20:09 [PATCHSET v2 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 ` Jens Axboe 2024-04-01 17:30 ` David Wei 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] io_uring/msg_ring: cleanup posting to IOPOLL vs !IOPOLL ring Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting Jens Axboe 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring; +Cc: Jens Axboe All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> --- io_uring/io_uring.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c index fddaefb9cbff..a311a244914b 100644 --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c @@ -1232,9 +1232,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); } -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, + unsigned flags) { - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; struct llist_node *head; @@ -1300,9 +1301,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); } -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, + struct task_struct *task) { - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; /* task_work already pending, we're done */ @@ -1321,7 +1323,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) return; } - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) return; io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); @@ -1331,10 +1333,22 @@ void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) { if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) { rcu_read_lock(); - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); + rcu_read_unlock(); + } else { + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); + } +} + +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, + unsigned flags) +{ + if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) { + rcu_read_lock(); + io_req_local_work_add(req, ctx, flags); rcu_read_unlock(); } else { - io_req_normal_work_add(req); + io_req_normal_work_add(req, READ_ONCE(ctx->submitter_task)); } } @@ -1348,7 +1362,7 @@ static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) io_task_work.node); node = node->next; - io_req_normal_work_add(req); + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); } } diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h index 1eb65324792a..4155379ee586 100644 --- a/io_uring/io_uring.h +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ struct file *io_file_get_fixed(struct io_kiocb *req, int fd, unsigned issue_flags); void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags); +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, + unsigned flags); bool io_alloc_async_data(struct io_kiocb *req); void io_req_task_queue(struct io_kiocb *req); void io_req_task_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe @ 2024-04-01 17:30 ` David Wei 2024-04-01 18:02 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: David Wei @ 2024-04-01 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, io-uring On 2024-03-29 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote: > All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb > itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its > own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. > > In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal > task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the > caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > --- > io_uring/io_uring.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c > index fddaefb9cbff..a311a244914b 100644 > --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c > +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c > @@ -1232,9 +1232,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) > WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); > } > > -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) > +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, > + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > + unsigned flags) > { > - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; > unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; > struct llist_node *head; > > @@ -1300,9 +1301,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) > wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > } > > -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) > +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, > + struct task_struct *task) > { > - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; > + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; > struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; > > /* task_work already pending, we're done */ > @@ -1321,7 +1323,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) > return; > } > > - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) > + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) > return; > > io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); > @@ -1331,10 +1333,22 @@ void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) > { > if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) { > rcu_read_lock(); > - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); > + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + } else { > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); Why does this not require a READ_ONCE() like io_req_task_work_add_remote()? > + } > +} > + > +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > + unsigned flags) > +{ > + if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) { > + rcu_read_lock(); > + io_req_local_work_add(req, ctx, flags); > rcu_read_unlock(); > } else { > - io_req_normal_work_add(req); > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, READ_ONCE(ctx->submitter_task)); > } > } > > @@ -1348,7 +1362,7 @@ static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) > io_task_work.node); > > node = node->next; > - io_req_normal_work_add(req); > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); > } > } > > diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h > index 1eb65324792a..4155379ee586 100644 > --- a/io_uring/io_uring.h > +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h > @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ struct file *io_file_get_fixed(struct io_kiocb *req, int fd, > unsigned issue_flags); > > void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags); > +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > + unsigned flags); > bool io_alloc_async_data(struct io_kiocb *req); > void io_req_task_queue(struct io_kiocb *req); > void io_req_task_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-04-01 17:30 ` David Wei @ 2024-04-01 18:02 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-04-01 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Wei, io-uring On 4/1/24 11:30 AM, David Wei wrote: > On 2024-03-29 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote: >> All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb >> itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its >> own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. >> >> In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal >> task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the >> caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> >> --- >> io_uring/io_uring.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> index fddaefb9cbff..a311a244914b 100644 >> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> @@ -1232,9 +1232,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) >> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); >> } >> >> -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >> +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, >> + unsigned flags) >> { >> - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >> unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; >> struct llist_node *head; >> >> @@ -1300,9 +1301,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >> wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >> } >> >> -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >> +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >> + struct task_struct *task) >> { >> - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; >> + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; >> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >> >> /* task_work already pending, we're done */ >> @@ -1321,7 +1323,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >> return; >> } >> >> - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >> + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >> return; >> >> io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); >> @@ -1331,10 +1333,22 @@ void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >> { >> if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) { >> rcu_read_lock(); >> - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); >> + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); >> + rcu_read_unlock(); >> + } else { >> + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); > > Why does this not require a READ_ONCE() like > io_req_task_work_add_remote()? One is the req->task side, which is serialized as it's setup at install time. For the ctx submitter_task, in _theory_ that isn't, hence read/write once must be used for those. In practice, I don't think the latter solves anything outside of perhaps KCSAN complaining. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/3] io_uring/msg_ring: cleanup posting to IOPOLL vs !IOPOLL ring 2024-03-29 20:09 [PATCHSET v2 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 ` Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting Jens Axboe 2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring; +Cc: Jens Axboe Move the posting outside the checking and locking, it's cleaner that way. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> --- io_uring/msg_ring.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/io_uring/msg_ring.c b/io_uring/msg_ring.c index cd6dcf634ba3..d1f66a40b4b4 100644 --- a/io_uring/msg_ring.c +++ b/io_uring/msg_ring.c @@ -147,13 +147,11 @@ static int io_msg_ring_data(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) if (target_ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL) { if (unlikely(io_double_lock_ctx(target_ctx, issue_flags))) return -EAGAIN; - if (io_post_aux_cqe(target_ctx, msg->user_data, msg->len, flags)) - ret = 0; - io_double_unlock_ctx(target_ctx); - } else { - if (io_post_aux_cqe(target_ctx, msg->user_data, msg->len, flags)) - ret = 0; } + if (io_post_aux_cqe(target_ctx, msg->user_data, msg->len, flags)) + ret = 0; + if (target_ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL) + io_double_unlock_ctx(target_ctx); return ret; } -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting 2024-03-29 20:09 [PATCHSET v2 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] io_uring/msg_ring: cleanup posting to IOPOLL vs !IOPOLL ring Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 ` Jens Axboe 2024-04-01 17:57 ` David Wei 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring; +Cc: Jens Axboe Use the exported helper for queueing task_work, rather than rolling our own. This improves peak performance of message passing by about 5x in some basic testing, with 2 threads just sending messages to each other. Before this change, it was capped at around 700K/sec, with the change it's at over 4M/sec. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> --- io_uring/msg_ring.c | 24 ++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/io_uring/msg_ring.c b/io_uring/msg_ring.c index d1f66a40b4b4..af8a5f2947b7 100644 --- a/io_uring/msg_ring.c +++ b/io_uring/msg_ring.c @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@ #include "filetable.h" #include "msg_ring.h" - /* All valid masks for MSG_RING */ #define IORING_MSG_RING_MASK (IORING_MSG_RING_CQE_SKIP | \ IORING_MSG_RING_FLAGS_PASS) @@ -21,7 +20,6 @@ struct io_msg { struct file *file; struct file *src_file; - struct callback_head tw; u64 user_data; u32 len; u32 cmd; @@ -73,26 +71,18 @@ static inline bool io_msg_need_remote(struct io_ring_ctx *target_ctx) return current != target_ctx->submitter_task; } -static int io_msg_exec_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, task_work_func_t func) +static int io_msg_exec_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, io_req_tw_func_t func) { struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->file->private_data; - struct io_msg *msg = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_msg); - struct task_struct *task = READ_ONCE(ctx->submitter_task); - - if (unlikely(!task)) - return -EOWNERDEAD; - - init_task_work(&msg->tw, func); - if (task_work_add(ctx->submitter_task, &msg->tw, TWA_SIGNAL)) - return -EOWNERDEAD; + req->io_task_work.func = func; + io_req_task_work_add_remote(req, ctx, IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE); return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE; } -static void io_msg_tw_complete(struct callback_head *head) +static void io_msg_tw_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts) { - struct io_msg *msg = container_of(head, struct io_msg, tw); - struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(msg); + struct io_msg *msg = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_msg); struct io_ring_ctx *target_ctx = req->file->private_data; int ret = 0; @@ -205,10 +195,8 @@ static int io_msg_install_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flag return ret; } -static void io_msg_tw_fd_complete(struct callback_head *head) +static void io_msg_tw_fd_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts) { - struct io_msg *msg = container_of(head, struct io_msg, tw); - struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(msg); int ret = -EOWNERDEAD; if (!(current->flags & PF_EXITING)) -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting Jens Axboe @ 2024-04-01 17:57 ` David Wei 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: David Wei @ 2024-04-01 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, io-uring On 2024-03-29 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote: > Use the exported helper for queueing task_work, rather than rolling our > own. > > This improves peak performance of message passing by about 5x in some > basic testing, with 2 threads just sending messages to each other. > Before this change, it was capped at around 700K/sec, with the change > it's at over 4M/sec. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > --- > io_uring/msg_ring.c | 24 ++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/io_uring/msg_ring.c b/io_uring/msg_ring.c > index d1f66a40b4b4..af8a5f2947b7 100644 > --- a/io_uring/msg_ring.c > +++ b/io_uring/msg_ring.c > @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@ > #include "filetable.h" > #include "msg_ring.h" > > - > /* All valid masks for MSG_RING */ > #define IORING_MSG_RING_MASK (IORING_MSG_RING_CQE_SKIP | \ > IORING_MSG_RING_FLAGS_PASS) > @@ -21,7 +20,6 @@ > struct io_msg { > struct file *file; > struct file *src_file; > - struct callback_head tw; > u64 user_data; > u32 len; > u32 cmd; > @@ -73,26 +71,18 @@ static inline bool io_msg_need_remote(struct io_ring_ctx *target_ctx) > return current != target_ctx->submitter_task; > } > > -static int io_msg_exec_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, task_work_func_t func) > +static int io_msg_exec_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, io_req_tw_func_t func) > { > struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->file->private_data; > - struct io_msg *msg = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_msg); > - struct task_struct *task = READ_ONCE(ctx->submitter_task); > - > - if (unlikely(!task)) > - return -EOWNERDEAD; > - > - init_task_work(&msg->tw, func); > - if (task_work_add(ctx->submitter_task, &msg->tw, TWA_SIGNAL)) > - return -EOWNERDEAD; > > + req->io_task_work.func = func; > + io_req_task_work_add_remote(req, ctx, IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE); > return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE; > } This part looks correct. Now with io_req_task_work_add_remote(), req->io_task_work.func is added to tctx->task_list, and queued up for execution on the remote ctx->submitter_task via task_work_add(). The end result is that the argument @func is executed on the remote ctx->submitter_task, which is the same outcome as before. Also, unsure how this hand rolled code interacted with defer taskrun before but now it is handled properly in io_req_task_work_add_remote(). > > -static void io_msg_tw_complete(struct callback_head *head) > +static void io_msg_tw_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts) > { > - struct io_msg *msg = container_of(head, struct io_msg, tw); > - struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(msg); > + struct io_msg *msg = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_msg); > struct io_ring_ctx *target_ctx = req->file->private_data; > int ret = 0; > > @@ -205,10 +195,8 @@ static int io_msg_install_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flag > return ret; > } > > -static void io_msg_tw_fd_complete(struct callback_head *head) > +static void io_msg_tw_fd_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts) > { > - struct io_msg *msg = container_of(head, struct io_msg, tw); > - struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(msg); > int ret = -EOWNERDEAD; > > if (!(current->flags & PF_EXITING)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCHSET 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance @ 2024-03-28 18:52 Jens Axboe 2024-03-28 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-28 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring Hi, MSG_RING rolls its own task_work handling, which there's really no need for. Rather, it should use the generic io_uring infrastructure for this. Add a helper for remote execution, and switch over MSG_RING to use it. This both cleans up the code, and improves performance of this opcode considerably. io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ io_uring/msg_ring.c | 37 ++++++++++++++----------------------- 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-28 18:52 [PATCHSET 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-28 18:52 ` Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 12:51 ` Pavel Begunkov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-28 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: io-uring; +Cc: Jens Axboe All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx and task. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> --- io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c index 9978dbe00027..609ff9ea5930 100644 --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c @@ -1241,9 +1241,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); } -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags) +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, + unsigned tw_flags) { - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; unsigned long flags; @@ -1291,9 +1292,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); } -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, + struct task_struct *task) { - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; unsigned long flags; bool was_empty; @@ -1319,7 +1321,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) return; } - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) return; io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); @@ -1328,9 +1330,18 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) { if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); + else + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); +} + +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags) +{ + if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) + io_req_local_work_add(req, ctx, flags); else - io_req_normal_work_add(req); + io_req_normal_work_add(req, task); } static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) @@ -1349,7 +1360,7 @@ static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) io_task_work.node); node = node->next; - io_req_normal_work_add(req); + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); } } diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h index bde463642c71..a6dec5321ec4 100644 --- a/io_uring/io_uring.h +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ struct file *io_file_get_fixed(struct io_kiocb *req, int fd, unsigned issue_flags); void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags); +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags); bool io_alloc_async_data(struct io_kiocb *req); void io_req_task_queue(struct io_kiocb *req); void io_req_task_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-28 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 12:51 ` Pavel Begunkov 2024-03-29 13:31 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2024-03-29 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, io-uring On 3/28/24 18:52, Jens Axboe wrote: > All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb > itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its > own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. > > In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal > task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the > caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx and task. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > --- > io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- > io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c > index 9978dbe00027..609ff9ea5930 100644 > --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c > +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c > @@ -1241,9 +1241,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) > WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); > } > > -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags) > +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, > + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > + unsigned tw_flags) > { > - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; > unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; > unsigned long flags; > > @@ -1291,9 +1292,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags > wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > } > > -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) > +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, > + struct task_struct *task) > { > - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; > + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; > struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; > unsigned long flags; > bool was_empty; > @@ -1319,7 +1321,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) > return; > } > > - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) > + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) > return; > > io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); > @@ -1328,9 +1330,18 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) > void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) > { > if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) > - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); > + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); > + else > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); > +} > + > +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, > + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags) Urgh, even the declration screams that there is something wrong considering it _either_ targets @ctx or @task. Just pass @ctx, so it either use ctx->submitter_task or req->task, hmm? A side note, it's a dangerous game, I told it before. At least it would've been nice to abuse lockdep in a form of: io_req_task_complete(req, tw, ctx) { lockdep_assert(req->ctx == ctx); ... } but we don't have @ctx there, maybe we'll add it to tw later. > +{ > + if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) > + io_req_local_work_add(req, ctx, flags); > else > - io_req_normal_work_add(req); > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, task); > } > > static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) > @@ -1349,7 +1360,7 @@ static void __cold io_move_task_work_from_local(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx) > io_task_work.node); > > node = node->next; > - io_req_normal_work_add(req); > + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); > } > } > > diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h > index bde463642c71..a6dec5321ec4 100644 > --- a/io_uring/io_uring.h > +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h > @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ struct file *io_file_get_fixed(struct io_kiocb *req, int fd, > unsigned issue_flags); > > void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags); > +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, > + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags); > bool io_alloc_async_data(struct io_kiocb *req); > void io_req_task_queue(struct io_kiocb *req); > void io_req_task_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts); -- Pavel Begunkov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-29 12:51 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2024-03-29 13:31 ` Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring On 3/29/24 6:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 3/28/24 18:52, Jens Axboe wrote: >> All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb >> itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its >> own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. >> >> In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal >> task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the >> caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx and task. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> >> --- >> io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- >> io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> index 9978dbe00027..609ff9ea5930 100644 >> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> @@ -1241,9 +1241,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) >> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); >> } >> -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags) >> +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, >> + unsigned tw_flags) >> { >> - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >> unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; >> unsigned long flags; >> @@ -1291,9 +1292,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags >> wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >> } >> -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >> +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >> + struct task_struct *task) >> { >> - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; >> + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; >> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >> unsigned long flags; >> bool was_empty; >> @@ -1319,7 +1321,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >> return; >> } >> - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >> + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >> return; >> io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); >> @@ -1328,9 +1330,18 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >> void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >> { >> if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) >> - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); >> + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); >> + else >> + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); >> +} >> + >> +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, >> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags) > > Urgh, even the declration screams that there is something wrong > considering it _either_ targets @ctx or @task. > > Just pass @ctx, so it either use ctx->submitter_task or > req->task, hmm? I actually since changed the above to use a common helper, so was scratching my head a bit over your comment as it can't really work in that setup without needing to check for whether ->submitter_task is set or not. But I do agree this would be nicer, so I'll just return to using the separate helpers for this and it should fall out nicely. The only odd caller is the MSG_RING side, so makes sense to have it a bit more separate rather than try and fold it in with the regular side of using task_work. > A side note, it's a dangerous game, I told it before. At least > it would've been nice to abuse lockdep in a form of: > > io_req_task_complete(req, tw, ctx) { > lockdep_assert(req->ctx == ctx); > ... > } > > but we don't have @ctx there, maybe we'll add it to tw later. Agree, but a separate thing imho. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-29 13:31 ` Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov 2024-03-29 16:10 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2024-03-29 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, io-uring On 3/29/24 13:31, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 3/29/24 6:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 3/28/24 18:52, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb >>> itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its >>> own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. >>> >>> In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal >>> task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the >>> caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx and task. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- >>> io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>> index 9978dbe00027..609ff9ea5930 100644 >>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>> @@ -1241,9 +1241,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) >>> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); >>> } >>> -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags) >>> +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, >>> + unsigned tw_flags) >>> { >>> - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >>> unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; >>> unsigned long flags; >>> @@ -1291,9 +1292,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags >>> wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >>> } >>> -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>> +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >>> + struct task_struct *task) >>> { >>> - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; >>> + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; >>> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >>> unsigned long flags; >>> bool was_empty; >>> @@ -1319,7 +1321,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>> return; >>> } >>> - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >>> + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >>> return; >>> io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); >>> @@ -1328,9 +1330,18 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>> void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >>> { >>> if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) >>> - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); >>> + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); >>> + else >>> + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); >>> +} >>> + >>> +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, >>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags) >> >> Urgh, even the declration screams that there is something wrong >> considering it _either_ targets @ctx or @task. >> >> Just pass @ctx, so it either use ctx->submitter_task or >> req->task, hmm? > > I actually since changed the above to use a common helper, so was > scratching my head a bit over your comment as it can't really work in > that setup without needing to check for whether ->submitter_task is set > or not. But I do agree this would be nicer, so I'll just return to using > the separate helpers for this and it should fall out nicely. The only > odd caller is the MSG_RING side, so makes sense to have it a bit more > separate rather than try and fold it in with the regular side of using > task_work. > >> A side note, it's a dangerous game, I told it before. At least >> it would've been nice to abuse lockdep in a form of: >> >> io_req_task_complete(req, tw, ctx) { >> lockdep_assert(req->ctx == ctx); >> ... >> } >> >> but we don't have @ctx there, maybe we'll add it to tw later. > > Agree, but a separate thing imho. It's not in a sense that condition couldn't have happened before and the patch opening all possibilities. We actually have @ctx via struct io_tctx_node, so considering fallback it would probably be: lockdep_assert(!current->io_uring || current->io_uring->ctx == req->ctx); -- Pavel Begunkov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper 2024-03-29 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2024-03-29 16:10 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-03-29 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring On 3/29/24 9:50 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 3/29/24 13:31, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 3/29/24 6:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 3/28/24 18:52, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> All our task_work handling is targeted at the state in the io_kiocb >>>> itself, which is what it is being used for. However, MSG_RING rolls its >>>> own task_work handling, ignoring how that is usually done. >>>> >>>> In preparation for switching MSG_RING to be able to use the normal >>>> task_work handling, add io_req_task_work_add_remote() which allows the >>>> caller to pass in the target io_ring_ctx and task. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> io_uring/io_uring.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- >>>> io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>> index 9978dbe00027..609ff9ea5930 100644 >>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>> @@ -1241,9 +1241,10 @@ void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb) >>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); >>>> } >>>> -static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags) >>>> +static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >>>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, >>>> + unsigned tw_flags) >>>> { >>>> - struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >>>> unsigned nr_wait, nr_tw, nr_tw_prev; >>>> unsigned long flags; >>>> @@ -1291,9 +1292,10 @@ static inline void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned tw_flags >>>> wake_up_state(ctx->submitter_task, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >>>> } >>>> -static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>>> +static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, >>>> + struct task_struct *task) >>>> { >>>> - struct io_uring_task *tctx = req->task->io_uring; >>>> + struct io_uring_task *tctx = task->io_uring; >>>> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; >>>> unsigned long flags; >>>> bool was_empty; >>>> @@ -1319,7 +1321,7 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> - if (likely(!task_work_add(req->task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >>>> + if (likely(!task_work_add(task, &tctx->task_work, ctx->notify_method))) >>>> return; >>>> io_fallback_tw(tctx, false); >>>> @@ -1328,9 +1330,18 @@ static void io_req_normal_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req) >>>> void __io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags) >>>> { >>>> if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) >>>> - io_req_local_work_add(req, flags); >>>> + io_req_local_work_add(req, req->ctx, flags); >>>> + else >>>> + io_req_normal_work_add(req, req->task); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +void io_req_task_work_add_remote(struct io_kiocb *req, struct task_struct *task, >>>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned flags) >>> >>> Urgh, even the declration screams that there is something wrong >>> considering it _either_ targets @ctx or @task. >>> >>> Just pass @ctx, so it either use ctx->submitter_task or >>> req->task, hmm? >> >> I actually since changed the above to use a common helper, so was >> scratching my head a bit over your comment as it can't really work in >> that setup without needing to check for whether ->submitter_task is set >> or not. But I do agree this would be nicer, so I'll just return to using >> the separate helpers for this and it should fall out nicely. The only >> odd caller is the MSG_RING side, so makes sense to have it a bit more >> separate rather than try and fold it in with the regular side of using >> task_work. >> >>> A side note, it's a dangerous game, I told it before. At least >>> it would've been nice to abuse lockdep in a form of: >>> >>> io_req_task_complete(req, tw, ctx) { >>> lockdep_assert(req->ctx == ctx); >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> but we don't have @ctx there, maybe we'll add it to tw later. >> >> Agree, but a separate thing imho. > > It's not in a sense that condition couldn't have happened > before and the patch opening all possibilities. > > We actually have @ctx via struct io_tctx_node, so considering > fallback it would probably be: > > lockdep_assert(!current->io_uring || > current->io_uring->ctx == req->ctx); That's not a bad idea. I did run all the testing verifying the ctx, and it all appears fine. But adding the check is a good idea in general. Want to send it? -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-01 18:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-03-29 20:09 [PATCHSET v2 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe 2024-04-01 17:30 ` David Wei 2024-04-01 18:02 ` Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] io_uring/msg_ring: cleanup posting to IOPOLL vs !IOPOLL ring Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 20:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring/msg_ring: improve handling of target CQE posting Jens Axboe 2024-04-01 17:57 ` David Wei -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2024-03-28 18:52 [PATCHSET 0/3] Cleanup and improve MSG_RING performance Jens Axboe 2024-03-28 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: add remote task_work execution helper Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 12:51 ` Pavel Begunkov 2024-03-29 13:31 ` Jens Axboe 2024-03-29 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov 2024-03-29 16:10 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox