From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH] io_uring: make POLL_ADD/POLL_REMOVE scale better
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:15:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
One of the obvious use cases for these commands is networking, where
it's not uncommon to have tons of sockets open and polled for. The
current implementation uses a list for insertion and lookup, which works
fine for file based use cases where the count is usually low, it breaks
down somewhat for higher number of files / sockets. A test case with
30k sockets being polled for and cancelled takes:
real 0m6.968s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m6.936s
with the patch it takes:
real 0m0.233s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.176s
If you go to 50k sockets, it gets even more abysmal with the current
code:
real 0m40.602s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m40.555s
with the patch it takes:
real 0m0.398s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.341s
Change is pretty straight forward, just replace the cancel_list with
a red/black tree instead.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 55f8b1d378df..5ad652fa24b8 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ struct io_ring_ctx {
* manipulate the list, hence no extra locking is needed there.
*/
struct list_head poll_list;
- struct list_head cancel_list;
+ struct rb_root cancel_tree;
spinlock_t inflight_lock;
struct list_head inflight_list;
@@ -323,7 +323,10 @@ struct io_kiocb {
struct sqe_submit submit;
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx;
- struct list_head list;
+ union {
+ struct list_head list;
+ struct rb_node rb_node;
+ };
struct list_head link_list;
unsigned int flags;
refcount_t refs;
@@ -433,7 +436,7 @@ static struct io_ring_ctx *io_ring_ctx_alloc(struct io_uring_params *p)
init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->wait);
spin_lock_init(&ctx->completion_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctx->poll_list);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctx->cancel_list);
+ ctx->cancel_tree = RB_ROOT;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctx->defer_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctx->timeout_list);
init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->inflight_wait);
@@ -1934,6 +1937,14 @@ static int io_accept(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
#endif
}
+static inline void io_poll_remove_req(struct io_kiocb *req)
+{
+ if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&req->rb_node)) {
+ rb_erase(&req->rb_node, &req->ctx->cancel_tree);
+ RB_CLEAR_NODE(&req->rb_node);
+ }
+}
+
static void io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req)
{
struct io_poll_iocb *poll = &req->poll;
@@ -1945,17 +1956,17 @@ static void io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req)
io_queue_async_work(req);
}
spin_unlock(&poll->head->lock);
-
- list_del_init(&req->list);
+ io_poll_remove_req(req);
}
static void io_poll_remove_all(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
{
+ struct rb_node *node;
struct io_kiocb *req;
spin_lock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
- while (!list_empty(&ctx->cancel_list)) {
- req = list_first_entry(&ctx->cancel_list, struct io_kiocb,list);
+ while ((node = rb_first(&ctx->cancel_tree)) != NULL) {
+ req = rb_entry(node, struct io_kiocb, rb_node);
io_poll_remove_one(req);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
@@ -1963,13 +1974,21 @@ static void io_poll_remove_all(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
static int io_poll_cancel(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, __u64 sqe_addr)
{
+ struct rb_node *p, *parent = NULL;
struct io_kiocb *req;
- list_for_each_entry(req, &ctx->cancel_list, list) {
- if (req->user_data != sqe_addr)
- continue;
- io_poll_remove_one(req);
- return 0;
+ p = ctx->cancel_tree.rb_node;
+ while (p) {
+ parent = p;
+ req = rb_entry(parent, struct io_kiocb, rb_node);
+ if (sqe_addr < req->user_data) {
+ p = p->rb_left;
+ } else if (sqe_addr > req->user_data) {
+ p = p->rb_right;
+ } else {
+ io_poll_remove_one(req);
+ return 0;
+ }
}
return -ENOENT;
@@ -2039,7 +2058,7 @@ static void io_poll_complete_work(struct io_wq_work **workptr)
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
return;
}
- list_del_init(&req->list);
+ io_poll_remove_req(req);
io_poll_complete(req, mask);
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
@@ -2073,7 +2092,7 @@ static int io_poll_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
* for finalizing the request, mark us as having grabbed that already.
*/
if (mask && spin_trylock_irqsave(&ctx->completion_lock, flags)) {
- list_del(&req->list);
+ io_poll_remove_req(req);
io_poll_complete(req, mask);
req->flags |= REQ_F_COMP_LOCKED;
io_put_req(req);
@@ -2108,6 +2127,25 @@ static void io_poll_queue_proc(struct file *file, struct wait_queue_head *head,
add_wait_queue(head, &pt->req->poll.wait);
}
+static void io_poll_req_insert(struct io_kiocb *req)
+{
+ struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
+ struct rb_node **p = &ctx->cancel_tree.rb_node;
+ struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
+ struct io_kiocb *tmp;
+
+ while (*p) {
+ parent = *p;
+ tmp = rb_entry(parent, struct io_kiocb, rb_node);
+ if (req->user_data < tmp->user_data)
+ p = &(*p)->rb_left;
+ else
+ p = &(*p)->rb_right;
+ }
+ rb_link_node(&req->rb_node, parent, p);
+ rb_insert_color(&req->rb_node, &ctx->cancel_tree);
+}
+
static int io_poll_add(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
struct io_kiocb **nxt)
{
@@ -2129,6 +2167,7 @@ static int io_poll_add(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
INIT_IO_WORK(&req->work, io_poll_complete_work);
events = READ_ONCE(sqe->poll_events);
poll->events = demangle_poll(events) | EPOLLERR | EPOLLHUP;
+ RB_CLEAR_NODE(&req->rb_node);
poll->head = NULL;
poll->done = false;
@@ -2161,7 +2200,7 @@ static int io_poll_add(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
else if (cancel)
WRITE_ONCE(poll->canceled, true);
else if (!poll->done) /* actually waiting for an event */
- list_add_tail(&req->list, &ctx->cancel_list);
+ io_poll_req_insert(req);
spin_unlock(&poll->head->lock);
}
if (mask) { /* no async, we'd stolen it */
--
Jens Axboe
reply other threads:[~2019-11-14 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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] \
/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