From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE3AC433F5 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1355736AbiBCWQN (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:16:13 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54516 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231159AbiBCWQN (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:16:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DBF2C06173B for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id s61-20020a17090a69c300b001b4d0427ea2so11313145pjj.4 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:16:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wF+Jmn9gWJUkdL4XKjJ8vgJJWNKU35vvnzSuRc8PN5Q=; b=GGo6gaJFMbgYTTuGPg8+xxapDAKK1AoJPtWyitET8UeYCT6aw6rlXQznUev0bDTH4v jsx724Annkq9eT47mBVels5GSoDInWT/A5LzW+i0QXCMIqJ1/RBic72KcDMO98zZoa/t aUli26OT4FBXcyU7lbIkrKfF8ZCuFL8FDnUHnZjc1U71+nCy9wTxEzt8oLIHkN7EMW5C z5Cv8jT3S6RHrn8PVrmJmjkTUfFfw1OLrlbc2ye9GMOpJHKKO3phXXAu7V5PjdK1Hrns 8B5t5Xk69ub/jqvcqTnPSkaqMOVpGcyf7F7v3GhyLRNhE8+W6Tj5Gv3HzIwdc6rK/sTi 8B9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wF+Jmn9gWJUkdL4XKjJ8vgJJWNKU35vvnzSuRc8PN5Q=; b=t7SiPq4q7oykfm+NO2H9+cjSZSZWAkYKmPlrPPYJnu0bjo1SeEZqU9ijg+4NyF1WqN EIcJrdujW+AOC5KH8evJIdFaVMsONIWbdIFSMNFunkK6ljUB6MR41095Nb60P1v/c1bF xevMcecv217Gs30PukSX6Vc1jcbjmL/Q1I1u/oouLA/nQzxgDu8NFERSz0Vcw4PNbc8D 75rppxHU75k1zcyHM2RBBcerYAjaFrFM2GPyVr4GusRWX09/saMHeOxMnnxWNZxDFkFl 36FzfkkZBrn57gLKl5L6xbmrcrKJjQoN+YArNJu8ExFDnbYnk79b2Czf5KttfqlH9Vl2 WHUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pyBIye8sjS5Sen2icN9yI15t0Bp5HaK7NM9x/JEDNiZVnKnNI bH2UY7QJQeLMua6BKmanonOOUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgWKRvlrq0OdVAtkNHPx6X+C7JYM4nQdSwb4xDp0WcsTw4OCO71XeMPI+YqLKOIbe+NDOXVw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:db02:: with SMTP id m2mr22417plx.136.1643926572417; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:16:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:7677:2608:7e4f:2c76:b02e:3fbc? ([2600:380:7677:2608:7e4f:2c76:b02e:3fbc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j4sm10095pfc.217.2022.02.03.14.16.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:16:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while registering/unregistering eventfd To: Pavel Begunkov , Usama Arif , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: fam.zheng@bytedance.com References: <20220203174108.668549-1-usama.arif@bytedance.com> <20220203174108.668549-3-usama.arif@bytedance.com> <877d54b9-5baa-f0b5-23fe-25aef78e37c4@bytedance.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <582c8c6f-cbcf-f8d7-4976-e70d0d51c42d@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:16:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 2/3/22 2:47 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 2/3/22 19:54, Usama Arif wrote: >> On 03/02/2022 19:06, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 2/3/22 12:00 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 2/3/22 18:29, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> On 2/3/22 11:26 AM, Usama Arif wrote: >>>>>> Hmm, maybe i didn't understand you and Pavel correctly. Are you >>>>>> suggesting to do the below diff over patch 3? I dont think that would be >>>>>> correct, as it is possible that just after checking if ctx->io_ev_fd is >>>>>> present unregister can be called by another thread and set ctx->io_ev_fd >>>>>> to NULL that would cause a NULL pointer exception later? In the current >>>>>> patch, the check of whether ev_fd exists happens as the first thing >>>>>> after rcu_read_lock and the rcu_read_lock are extremely cheap i believe. >>>>> >>>>> They are cheap, but they are still noticeable at high requests/sec >>>>> rates. So would be best to avoid them. >>>>> >>>>> And yes it's obviously racy, there's the potential to miss an eventfd >>>>> notification if it races with registering an eventfd descriptor. But >>>>> that's not really a concern, as if you register with inflight IO >>>>> pending, then that always exists just depending on timing. The only >>>>> thing I care about here is that it's always _safe_. Hence something ala >>>>> what you did below is totally fine, as we're re-evaluating under rcu >>>>> protection. >>>> >>>> Indeed, the patch doesn't have any formal guarantees for propagation >>>> to already inflight requests, so this extra unsynchronised check >>>> doesn't change anything. >>>> >>>> I'm still more сurious why we need RCU and extra complexity when >>>> apparently there is no use case for that. If it's only about >>>> initial initialisation, then as I described there is a much >>>> simpler approach. >>> >>> Would be nice if we could get rid of the quiesce code in general, but I >>> haven't done a check to see what'd be missing after this... >>> >> >> I had checked! I had posted below in in reply to v1 (https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/02fb0bc3-fc38-b8f0-3067-edd2a525ef29@gmail.com/T/#m5ac7867ac61d86fe62c099be793ffe5a9a334976), but i think it got missed! Copy-pasting here for reference: > > May have missed it then, apologies > >> " >> I see that if we remove ring quiesce from the the above 3 opcodes, then >> only IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS and IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS is >> left for ring quiesce. I just had a quick look at those, and from what i >> see we might not need to enter ring quiesce in >> IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS as the ring is already disabled at that point? >> And for IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS if we do a similar approach to >> IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, i.e. wrap ctx->restrictions inside an RCU >> protected data structure, use spin_lock to prevent multiple >> io_register_restrictions calls at the same time, and use read_rcu_lock >> in io_check_restriction, then we can remove ring quiesce from >> io_uring_register altogether? >> >> My usecase only uses IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, but i think entering ring >> quiesce costs similar in other opcodes. If the above sounds reasonable, >> please let me know and i can send patches for removing ring quiesce for >> io_uring_register. >> " >> >> Let me know if above makes sense, i can add patches on top of the current patchset, or we can do it after they get merged. >> >> As for why, quiesce state is very expensive. its making io_uring_register the most expensive syscall in my usecase (~15ms) compared to ~0.1ms now with RCU, which is why i started investigating this. And this patchset avoids ring quiesce for 3 of the opcodes, so it would generally be quite helpful if someone does registers and unregisters eventfd multiple times. > > I agree that 15ms for initial setup is silly and it has to be > reduced. However, I'm trying weight the extra complexity against > potential benefits of _also_ optimising [de,re]-registration > > Considering that you only register it one time at the beginning, > we risk adding a yet another feature that nobody is going to ever > use. This doesn't give me a nice feeling, well, unless you do > have a use case. It's not really a new feature, it's just making the existing one not suck quite as much... > To emphasise, I'm comparing 15->0.1 improvement for only initial > registration (which is simpler) vs 15->0.1 for both registration > and unregistration. reg+unreg should be way faster too, if done properly with the assignment tricks. > fwiw, it alters userpace visible behaviour in either case, shouldn't > be as important here but there is always a chance to break userspace It doesn't alter userspace behavior, if the registration works like I described with being able to assign a new one while the old one is being torn down. Or do you mean wrt inflight IO? I don't think the risk is very high there, to be honest. -- Jens Axboe