From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Dmitry Sychov <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Waiting for requests completions from multiple threads
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 06:28:31 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1895 bytes --]
On 22/01/2020 06:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/21/20 8:09 PM, Dmitry Sychov wrote:
>> Thank you for quick reply! Yes I understand that I need a sort of
>> serializable-level isolation
>> when accessing the rings - I hope this could be done with a simple
>> atomic cmp-add after optimistic write ring update.
>
> That's not a bad idea, that could definitely work, and would be more
> efficient than just grabbing a lock.
>
If I got it right, it still will spam the system with atomics.
There is another pattern to consider, (seen in the networking world a lot). Just
one thread gets completions (i.e. calls io_uring_enter()), and than distributes
jobs to a thread pool.
And for this distribution there are a lot of way to do it efficiently. E.g. see
internal techniques in java fork join merge.
That's for completion part.
> Could also be made to work quite nicely with restartable sequences. I'd
> love to see liburing grow support for smarter sharing of a ring, that's
> really where that belongs.
>
>> Correct me if I'am wrong, but from my understanding the kernel can
>> start to pick up newly written Uring jobs
>> without waiting for the "io_uring_enter" user level call and that's
>> why we need a write barrier(so that
>> the ring state is always valid for the kernel), else "io_uring_enter"
>> could serve as a write barrier itself as well...
>
> By uring jobs, you mean SQEs, or submission queue entries? The kernel
> only picks up what you ask it to, it won't randomly just grab entries
> from the SQ ring unless you do an io_uring_enter() and tell it to
> consume N entries. The exception is if you setup the ring with
> IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL, in which case the kernel will maintain a submission
> thread. For that case, yes, the kernel can pickup an entry as soon as
> the SQ tail is updated by the application.
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-22 3:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-22 2:45 Waiting for requests completions from multiple threads Dmitry Sychov
2020-01-22 2:51 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-22 3:09 ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-01-22 3:16 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-22 3:28 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-01-22 17:54 ` Dmitry Sychov
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] \
[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