From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: limit inflight IO
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 22:24:59 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1939 bytes --]
On 09/11/2019 17:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/9/19 4:16 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> I've been struggling a bit with how to make this reliable, and I'm not
>>> so sure there's a way to do that. Let's say an application sets up a
>>> ring with 8 sq entries, which would then default to 16 cq entries. With
>>> this patch, we'd allow 16 ios inflight. But what if the application does
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
>>> sqe = get_sqe();
>>> prep_sqe();
>>> submit_sqe();
>>> }
>>>
>>> And then directly proceeds to:
>>>
>>> do {
>>> get_completions();
>>> } while (has_completions);
>>>
>>> As long as fewer than 16 requests complete before we start reaping,
>>> we don't lose any events. Hence there's a risk of breaking existing
>>> setups with this, even though I don't think that's a high risk.
>>>
>>
>> I think, this should be considered as an erroneous usage of the API.
>> It's better to fail ASAP than to be surprised in a production
>> system, because of non-deterministic nature of such code. Even worse
>> with trying to debug such stuff.
>>
>> As for me, cases like below are too far-fetched
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> submit_read_sqe()
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> device_allow_next_read()
>> get_single_cqe()
>> }
>
> I can't really disagree with that, it's a use case that's bound to fail
> every now and then...
>
> But if we agree that's the case, then we should be able to just limit
> based on the cq ring size in question.
>
> Do we make it different fro CQ_NODROP and !CQ_NODROP or not? Because the
> above case would work with CQ_NODROP, reliably. At least CQ_NODROP is
> new so we get to set the rules for that one, they just have to make
> sense.
>
...would work reliably... and also would let user know about
stalling (-EBUSY). I thinks it's a good idea to always do
CQ_NODROP, as in the backlogged patch update.
--
Pavel Begunkov
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-09 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-07 23:21 [PATCH RFC] io_uring: limit inflight IO Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 0:19 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 9:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-08 14:05 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 17:45 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-09 11:16 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-09 14:23 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-09 15:15 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-09 19:24 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2019-11-09 10:33 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-09 14:12 ` 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 \
[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