From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>,
Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:56:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e4614f9442d971016f47d69fbcba226f758377a8.1624215754.git.olivier@trillion01.com>
On 6/20/21 8:05 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns EAGAIN,
> the data becomes available between that failure and the call to
> vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler().
>
> Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster
> than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index fa8794c61af7..6e037304429a 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -5143,7 +5143,10 @@ static __poll_t __io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req,
> return mask;
> }
>
> -static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
> +#define IO_ARM_POLL_OK 0
> +#define IO_ARM_POLL_ERR 1
> +#define IO_ARM_POLL_READY 2
Please add a new line here. Can even be moved somewhere
to the top, but it's a matter of taste.
Also, how about to rename it to apoll? io_uring internal
rw/send/recv polling is often abbreviated as such around
io_uring.c
IO_APOLL_OK and so on.
> +static int io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
> {
> const struct io_op_def *def = &io_op_defs[req->opcode];
> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
> @@ -5153,22 +5156,22 @@ static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
> int rw;
>
> if (!req->file || !file_can_poll(req->file))
> - return false;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
It's not really an error. Maybe IO_APOLL_ABORTED or so?
> if (req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED)
> - return false;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
> if (def->pollin)
> rw = READ;
> else if (def->pollout)
> rw = WRITE;
> else
> - return false;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
> /* if we can't nonblock try, then no point in arming a poll handler */
> if (!io_file_supports_async(req, rw))
> - return false;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
>
> apoll = kmalloc(sizeof(*apoll), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (unlikely(!apoll))
> - return false;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
> apoll->double_poll = NULL;
>
> req->flags |= REQ_F_POLLED;
> @@ -5194,12 +5197,12 @@ static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
> if (ret || ipt.error) {
> io_poll_remove_double(req);
> spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> - return false;
> + return ret?IO_ARM_POLL_READY:IO_ARM_POLL_ERR;
spaces would be great.
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> trace_io_uring_poll_arm(ctx, req->opcode, req->user_data, mask,
> apoll->poll.events);
> - return true;
> + return IO_ARM_POLL_OK;
> }
>
> static bool __io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req,
> @@ -6416,6 +6419,7 @@ static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req)
> struct io_kiocb *linked_timeout = io_prep_linked_timeout(req);
> int ret;
>
> +issue_sqe:
> ret = io_issue_sqe(req, IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK|IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER);
>
> /*
> @@ -6435,12 +6439,16 @@ static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req)
> io_put_req(req);
> }
> } else if (ret == -EAGAIN && !(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT)) {
> - if (!io_arm_poll_handler(req)) {
> + switch (io_arm_poll_handler(req)) {
> + case IO_ARM_POLL_READY:
> + goto issue_sqe;
Checked assembly, the fast path looks ok (i.e. not affected).
Also, a note, linked_timeout is handled correctly.
> + case IO_ARM_POLL_ERR:
> /*
> * Queued up for async execution, worker will release
> * submit reference when the iocb is actually submitted.
> */
> io_queue_async_work(req);
> + break;
> }
> } else {
> io_req_complete_failed(req, ret);
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-20 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-20 19:05 [PATCH v2] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 19:07 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-20 19:28 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 20:01 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-20 20:08 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 20:54 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 22:17 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-21 16:03 ` Jens Axboe
2021-06-20 19:56 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-06-20 20:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 20:56 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 21:05 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 21:09 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 21:11 ` Pavel Begunkov
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] \
/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