From: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Possible unneccessary IORING_OP_READs executed in Async
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 16:26:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
Hi,
I was trying to understand why I was ending up with io worker threads
when io_uring fast polling should have been enough to manage my read
operations.
I have found 2 possible scenarios:
1. Concurrent read requests on the same socket fd.
I have documented this scenario here:
https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/351
In a nutshell, the idea is if 2 read operations on the same fd are
queued in io_uring fast poll, on the next io_uring_cqring_wait() call
if events become available on the fd, the first serviced request will
grab all the available data and this will push the second request in
the io-wq because when it will be serviced, the read will return EAGAIN
and req->flags will have REQ_F_POLLED set.
I was supposed to investigate my application to find out why it is
doing that but I have put the investigation on hold to fix the core
dump generation problem that I was experiencing with io_uring. I did
solve that mystery BTW.
io_uring interrupts the core generation by setting TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
through calling task_work_add().
(I have sent out a patch last week that seems to have fallen in
/dev/null. I need resend it...)
Now that I am back to my io worker threads creation concern, I am not
able to recreate scenario #1 but I have found a second way that io-
workers can be spawned:
2.
In __io_queue_sqe():
a) io_issue_sqe() returns EAGAIN
b) in between io_issue_sqe() call and vfs_poll() call done inside
io_arm_poll_handler(), data becomes available
c) io_arm_poll_handler() returns false because vfs_poll() did return an
non-empty mask.
I am throwing this idea to the group.
Would it be a good idea to detect that situation and recall
io_issue_sqe() in that case instead of pushing the request to the io-
wq?
On busy TCP sockets, this scenario seems to happen very often (ie: few
times every second)
Greetings,
Olivier
next reply other threads:[~2021-06-07 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 20:26 Olivier Langlois [this message]
2021-06-09 22:01 ` Possible unneccessary IORING_OP_READs executed in Async Olivier Langlois
2021-06-09 22:08 ` Olivier Langlois
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=439fa5114eb2bf0914e11c2a0c97798885c7d83f.camel@trillion01.com \
[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