Question about sendfile

Question about sendfile

[Hao Xu]

Hi Pavel,
I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's not
good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/

Thanks,
Hao

Re: Question about sendfile

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 7/3/21 11:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's not
> good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/

IIRC, it's one page allocated for each such task, which is bearable but
don't like yet another chunk of uncontrollable implicit state. If there
not a bunch of active workers, IFAIK there is no way to force them to
drop their pipes.

I also don't remember the restrictions on the sendfile and what's with
the eternal question of "what to do if the write part of sendfile has
failed".   

Though, workers are now much more alike to user threads, so there
should be less of concern. And even though my gut feeling don't like
them, it may actually be useful. Do you have a good use case where
explicit pipes don't work well? 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

Re: Question about sendfile

[Hao Xu]

在 2021/7/7 下午10:16, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
> On 7/3/21 11:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>> I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's not
>> good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/
> 
> IIRC, it's one page allocated for each such task, which is bearable but
> don't like yet another chunk of uncontrollable implicit state. If there
> not a bunch of active workers, IFAIK there is no way to force them to
> drop their pipes.
> 
> I also don't remember the restrictions on the sendfile and what's with
> the eternal question of "what to do if the write part of sendfile has
> failed".
I haven't dig into it deeply, will do some investigation.
> 
> Though, workers are now much more alike to user threads, so there
> should be less of concern. And even though my gut feeling don't like
> them, it may actually be useful. Do you have a good use case where
> explicit pipes don't work well?
The thing is two linked splice sqes may be cut off in shared sqthread
case.
> 

Re: Question about sendfile

[Hao Xu]

在 2021/7/7 下午10:16, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
> On 7/3/21 11:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>> I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's not
>> good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/
> 
> IIRC, it's one page allocated for each such task, which is bearable but
> don't like yet another chunk of uncontrollable implicit state. If there
> not a bunch of active workers, IFAIK there is no way to force them to
> drop their pipes.
> 
> I also don't remember the restrictions on the sendfile and what's with
> the eternal question of "what to do if the write part of sendfile has
> failed".
Hi Pavel,
Could you explain this question a little bit.., is there any special
concern? What I thought is sendfile does what it does,when it fails,
it will return -1 and errno is set appropriately.
> 
> Though, workers are now much more alike to user threads, so there
> should be less of concern. And even though my gut feeling don't like
> them, it may actually be useful. Do you have a good use case where
> explicit pipes don't work well?
> 

Re: Question about sendfile

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 11/26/21 08:50, Hao Xu wrote:
> 在 2021/7/7 下午10:16, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
>> On 7/3/21 11:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>> I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's not
>>> good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/
>>
>> IIRC, it's one page allocated for each such task, which is bearable but
>> don't like yet another chunk of uncontrollable implicit state. If there
>> not a bunch of active workers, IFAIK there is no way to force them to
>> drop their pipes.
>>
>> I also don't remember the restrictions on the sendfile and what's with
>> the eternal question of "what to do if the write part of sendfile has
>> failed".
> Hi Pavel,
> Could you explain this question a little bit.., is there any special
> concern? What I thought is sendfile does what it does,when it fails,
> it will return -1 and errno is set appropriately.

I don't have much concern about this one, though interesting how
it was solved and whether you need to know the issuing task to
handle errors.

I didn't like more having uncontrollable memory, i.e. a pipe per
worker that used sendfile (IIRC it keeps 1 page), and no way to
reuse the memory or release it. In other words, a sendfile request
chooses to which worker it goes randomly. E.g. First sendfile may go
to worker 1 leaving 1 page allocated. The second sendfile goes to
worker 2, so after we have 2 pages allocated, an so on. At some
point you have N pages, where any particular one may likely be
rarely used.

Please correct me if I forgot how it works and wrong here.

>> Though, workers are now much more alike to user threads, so there
>> should be less of concern. And even though my gut feeling don't like
>> them, it may actually be useful. Do you have a good use case where
>> explicit pipes don't work well?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

Re: Question about sendfile

[Hao Xu]

在 2021/12/4 上午12:03, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
> On 11/26/21 08:50, Hao Xu wrote:
>> 在 2021/7/7 下午10:16, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
>>> On 7/3/21 11:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>> I found this mail about sendfile in the maillist, may I ask why it's 
>>>> not
>>>> good to have one pipe each for a io-wq thread.
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/94dbbb15-4751-d03c-01fd-d25a0fe98e25@gmail.com/ 
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, it's one page allocated for each such task, which is bearable but
>>> don't like yet another chunk of uncontrollable implicit state. If there
>>> not a bunch of active workers, IFAIK there is no way to force them to
>>> drop their pipes.
>>>
>>> I also don't remember the restrictions on the sendfile and what's with
>>> the eternal question of "what to do if the write part of sendfile has
>>> failed".
>> Hi Pavel,
>> Could you explain this question a little bit.., is there any special
>> concern? What I thought is sendfile does what it does,when it fails,
>> it will return -1 and errno is set appropriately.
> 
> I don't have much concern about this one, though interesting how
> it was solved and whether you need to know the issuing task to
> handle errors.
> 
> I didn't like more having uncontrollable memory, i.e. a pipe per
> worker that used sendfile (IIRC it keeps 1 page), and no way to
> reuse the memory or release it. In other words, a sendfile request
> chooses to which worker it goes randomly. E.g. First sendfile may go
> to worker 1 leaving 1 page allocated. The second sendfile goes to
> worker 2, so after we have 2 pages allocated, an so on. At some
> point you have N pages, where any particular one may likely be
> rarely used.
I'm not sure when the pipe is freed(seems it won't be freed after
sendfile call and it is reused). If it won't be freed automatically
we can manually free it when a worker completes a sendfile work. I think
in normal cases, a user cannot and shouldn't visit the internal pipe
after senfile is done no matter it succeeds or fails, which means we
can free the pipe at that time. Not 100% sure but probably..
> 
> Please correct me if I forgot how it works and wrong here.
> 
>>> Though, workers are now much more alike to user threads, so there
>>> should be less of concern. And even though my gut feeling don't like
>>> them, it may actually be useful. Do you have a good use case where
>>> explicit pipes don't work well?
>