From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] io_uring: optimise compl locking for non-shared rings
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 08:54:02 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c91a7dc445420230f7936d7f913eb212c1c07a3.1647610155.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
On 3/18/22 7:52 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> When only one task submits requests, most of CQEs are expected to be
> filled from that task context so we have natural serialisation. That
> would mean that in those cases we don't need spinlocking around CQE
> posting. One downside is that it also mean that io-wq workers can't emit
> CQEs directly but should do it through the original task context using
> task_works. That may hurt latency and performance and might matter much
> to some workloads, but it's not a huge deal in general as io-wq is a
> slow path and there is some additional merit from tw completion
> batching.
Not too worried about io-wq task_work for cq filling, it is the slower
path after all. And I think we can get away with doing notifications as
it's just for CQ filling. If the task is currently waiting in
cqring_wait, then it'll get woken anyway and it will process task work.
If it's in userspace, it doesn't need a notification. That should make
it somewhat lighter than requiring using TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL for that.
> The feature should be opted-in by the userspace by setting a new
> IORING_SETUP_PRIVATE_CQ flag. It doesn't work with IOPOLL, and also for
> now only the task that created a ring can submit requests to it.
I know this is a WIP, but why do we need CQ_PRIVATE? And this needs to
work with registered files (and ring fd) as that is probably a bigger
win than skipping the completion_lock if you're not shared anyway.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-18 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-18 13:52 [RFC 0/4] completion locking optimisation feature Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] io_uring: get rid of raw fill cqe in kill_timeout Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] io_uring: get rid of raw fill_cqe in io_fail_links Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] io_uring: remove raw fill_cqe from linked timeout Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] io_uring: optimise compl locking for non-shared rings Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 14:54 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-03-18 15:13 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 15:21 ` Jens Axboe
2022-03-18 15:32 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 16:06 ` Jens Axboe
2022-03-18 14:42 ` [RFC 0/4] completion locking optimisation feature Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 14:52 ` Jens Axboe
2022-03-18 15:00 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-03-18 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
2022-03-18 15:34 ` Pavel Begunkov
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 \
[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