public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Genes Lists <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	Oleksandr Natalenko <[email protected]>,
	[email protected]
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.4 800/800] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:04:41 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 7/24/23 11:47, Jens Axboe wrote:

> It's not a behavioural change, it's a reporting change. There's no
> functionality changing here. That said, I do think we should narrow it a
> bit so we're only marked as in iowait if the task waiting has pending
> IO. That should still satisfy the initial problem, and it won't flag
> iowait on mariadb like cases where they have someone else just
> perpetually waiting on requests.
> 
> As a side effect, this also removes the flush that wasn't at all
> necessary on io_uring.
> 
> If folks are able to test the below, that would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> index 89a611541bc4..f4591b912ea8 100644
> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> @@ -2493,11 +2493,20 @@ int io_run_task_work_sig(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +static bool current_pending_io(void)
> +{
> +	struct io_uring_task *tctx = current->io_uring;
> +
> +	if (!tctx)
> +		return false;
> +	return percpu_counter_read_positive(&tctx->inflight);
> +}
> +
>   /* when returns >0, the caller should retry */
>   static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>   					  struct io_wait_queue *iowq)
>   {
> -	int token, ret;
> +	int io_wait, ret;
>   
>   	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(ctx->check_cq)))
>   		return 1;
> @@ -2511,17 +2520,19 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>   		return 0;
>   
>   	/*
> -	 * Use io_schedule_prepare/finish, so cpufreq can take into account
> -	 * that the task is waiting for IO - turns out to be important for low
> -	 * QD IO.
> +	 * Mark us as being in io_wait if we have pending requests, so cpufreq
> +	 * can take into account that the task is waiting for IO - turns out
> +	 * to be important for low QD IO.
>   	 */
> -	token = io_schedule_prepare();
> +	io_wait = current->in_iowait;
> +	if (current_pending_io())
> +		current->in_iowait = 1;
>   	ret = 0;
>   	if (iowq->timeout == KTIME_MAX)
>   		schedule();
>   	else if (!schedule_hrtimeout(&iowq->timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
>   		ret = -ETIME;
> -	io_schedule_finish(token);
> +	current->in_iowait = io_wait;
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> 
Tested on top of 6.4.6 stable - and working great - iowait stats now 
look like they always did.

thank you

gene

      reply	other threads:[~2023-07-24 18:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <[email protected]>
2023-07-16 19:50 ` [PATCH 6.4 800/800] io_uring: Use io_schedule* in cqring wait Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-07-23  9:39   ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2023-07-23 10:50     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-07-23 10:55       ` Genes Lists
2023-07-23 10:56       ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2023-07-23 12:11     ` Linux regression tracking #adding (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2023-07-23 17:35       ` Linux regression tracking #update (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2023-07-23 15:31     ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-23 17:43       ` Genes Lists
2023-07-23 18:06         ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2023-07-23 18:58           ` Andres Freund
2023-07-23 19:44             ` Genes Lists
2023-07-24 15:47           ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-24 18:04             ` Genes Lists [this message]

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] \
    [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