public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>,
	[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: reduce frequent add_wait_queue() overhead for multi-shot poll request
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 20:21:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 10/25/21 06:38, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> Run echo_server to evaluate io_uring's multi-shot poll performance, perf
> shows that add_wait_queue() has obvious overhead. Intruduce a new state
> 'active' in io_poll_iocb to indicate whether io_poll_wake() should queue
> a task_work. This new state will be set to true initially, be set to false
> when starting to queue a task work, and be set to true again when a poll
> cqe has been committed. One concern is that this method may lost waken-up
> event, but seems it's ok.
> 
>    io_poll_wake                io_poll_task_func
> t1                       |
> t2                       |    WRITE_ONCE(req->poll.active, true);
> t3                       |
> t4                       |    io_commit_cqring(ctx);
> t5                       |
> t6                       |
> 
> If waken-up events happens before or at t4, it's ok, user app will always
> see a cqe. If waken-up events happens after t4 and IIUC, io_poll_wake()
> will see the new req->poll.active value by using READ_ONCE().
> 
> Echo_server codes can be cloned from:
> https://codeup.openanolis.cn/codeup/storage/io_uring-echo-server.git,
> branch is xiaoguangwang/io_uring_multishot.
> 
> Without this patch, the tps in our test environment is 284116, with
> this patch, the tps is 287832, about 1.3% reqs improvement, which
> is indeed in accord with the saved add_wait_queue() cost.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
>   fs/io_uring.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 18af9bb9a4bc..e4c779dac953 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -481,6 +481,7 @@ struct io_poll_iocb {
>   	__poll_t			events;
>   	bool				done;
>   	bool				canceled;
> +	bool				active;
>   	struct wait_queue_entry		wait;
>   };
>   
> @@ -5233,8 +5234,6 @@ static inline int __io_async_wake(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_poll_iocb *pol
>   {
>   	trace_io_uring_task_add(req->ctx, req->opcode, req->user_data, mask);
>   
> -	list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
> -

As I mentioned to Hao some time ago, we can't allow this function or in
particular io_req_task_work_add() to happen twice before the first
task work got executed, they use the same field in io_kiocb and those
will corrupt the tw list.

Looks that's what can happen here.

>   	req->result = mask;
>   	req->io_task_work.func = func;
>   
> @@ -5265,7 +5264,10 @@ static bool io_poll_rewait(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_poll_iocb *poll)
>   
>   	spin_lock(&ctx->completion_lock);
>   	if (!req->result && !READ_ONCE(poll->canceled)) {
> -		add_wait_queue(poll->head, &poll->wait);
> +		if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_POLL_ADD)
> +			WRITE_ONCE(poll->active, true);
> +		else
> +			add_wait_queue(poll->head, &poll->wait);
>   		return true;
>   	}
>   
> @@ -5331,6 +5333,26 @@ static bool __io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask)
>   	return !(flags & IORING_CQE_F_MORE);
>   }
>   
> +static bool __io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req,
> +				 struct io_poll_iocb *poll, bool do_cancel)
> +	__must_hold(&req->ctx->completion_lock)
> +{
> +	bool do_complete = false;
> +
> +	if (!poll->head)
> +		return false;
> +	spin_lock_irq(&poll->head->lock);
> +	if (do_cancel)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(poll->canceled, true);
> +	if (!list_empty(&poll->wait.entry)) {
> +		list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
> +		do_complete = true;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&poll->head->lock);
> +	hash_del(&req->hash_node);
> +	return do_complete;
> +}
> +
>   static void io_poll_task_func(struct io_kiocb *req, bool *locked)
>   {
>   	struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
> @@ -5348,11 +5370,12 @@ static void io_poll_task_func(struct io_kiocb *req, bool *locked)
>   		done = __io_poll_complete(req, req->result);
>   		if (done) {
>   			io_poll_remove_double(req);
> +			__io_poll_remove_one(req, io_poll_get_single(req), true);
>   			hash_del(&req->hash_node);
>   			req->poll.done = true;
>   		} else {
>   			req->result = 0;
> -			add_wait_queue(req->poll.head, &req->poll.wait);
> +			WRITE_ONCE(req->poll.active, true);
>   		}
>   		io_commit_cqring(ctx);
>   		spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
> @@ -5407,6 +5430,7 @@ static void io_init_poll_iocb(struct io_poll_iocb *poll, __poll_t events,
>   	poll->head = NULL;
>   	poll->done = false;
>   	poll->canceled = false;
> +	poll->active = true;
>   #define IO_POLL_UNMASK	(EPOLLERR|EPOLLHUP|EPOLLNVAL|EPOLLRDHUP)
>   	/* mask in events that we always want/need */
>   	poll->events = events | IO_POLL_UNMASK;
> @@ -5513,6 +5537,7 @@ static int io_async_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
>   	if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
>   		return 0;
>   
> +	list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
>   	return __io_async_wake(req, poll, mask, io_async_task_func);
>   }
>   
> @@ -5623,26 +5648,6 @@ static int io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
>   	return IO_APOLL_OK;
>   }
>   
> -static bool __io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req,
> -				 struct io_poll_iocb *poll, bool do_cancel)
> -	__must_hold(&req->ctx->completion_lock)
> -{
> -	bool do_complete = false;
> -
> -	if (!poll->head)
> -		return false;
> -	spin_lock_irq(&poll->head->lock);
> -	if (do_cancel)
> -		WRITE_ONCE(poll->canceled, true);
> -	if (!list_empty(&poll->wait.entry)) {
> -		list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
> -		do_complete = true;
> -	}
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&poll->head->lock);
> -	hash_del(&req->hash_node);
> -	return do_complete;
> -}
> -
>   static bool io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req)
>   	__must_hold(&req->ctx->completion_lock)
>   {
> @@ -5779,6 +5784,10 @@ static int io_poll_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
>   	if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
>   		return 0;
>   
> +	if (!READ_ONCE(poll->active))
> +		return 0;
> +	WRITE_ONCE(poll->active, false);
> +
>   	return __io_async_wake(req, poll, mask, io_poll_task_func);
>   }
>   
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-28 19:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-25  5:38 [PATCH v3 0/3] improvements for multi-shot poll requests Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25  5:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] io_uring: refactor event check out of __io_async_wake() Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25  9:35   ` Praveen Kumar
2021-10-25  5:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: reduce frequent add_wait_queue() overhead for multi-shot poll request Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 19:21   ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-10-29  2:57     ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-29 10:02       ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 13:37         ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-29 13:47           ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 14:12           ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 14:34             ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25  5:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] io_uring: don't get completion_lock in io_poll_rewait() Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 19:26   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29  5:59     ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 18:19 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] improvements for multi-shot poll requests Jens Axboe
2021-10-29 18:29   ` Jens Axboe
2021-10-28 18:19 ` Jens Axboe
2021-10-28 19:01   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-28 19:04     ` 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] \
    /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