From: Jiufei Xue <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH liburing 1/2] io_uring_enter: add timeout support
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:29:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi Jens,
On 2020/8/4 上午12:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/2/20 9:16 PM, Jiufei Xue wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> On 2020/7/31 上午11:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Then why not just make the sqe-less timeout path flush existing requests,
>>> if it needs to? Seems a lot simpler than adding odd x2 variants, which
>>> won't really be clear.
>>>
>> Flushing the requests will access and modify the head of submit queue, that
>> may race with the submit thread. I think the reap thread should not touch
>> the submit queue when IORING_FEAT_GETEVENTS_TIMEOUT is supported.
>
> Ahhh, that's the clue I was missing, yes that's a good point!
>
>>> Chances are, if it's called with sq entries pending, the caller likely
>>> wants those submitted. Either the caller was aware and relying on that
>>> behavior, or the caller is simply buggy and has a case where it doesn't
>>> submit IO before waiting for completions.
>>>
>>
>> That is not true when the SQ/CQ handling are split in two different threads.
>> The reaping thread is not aware of the submit queue. It should only wait for
>> completion of the requests, such as below:
>>
>> submitting_thread: reaping_thread:
>>
>> io_uring_get_sqe()
>> io_uring_prep_nop()
>> io_uring_wait_cqe_timeout2()
>> io_uring_submit()
>> woken if requests are completed or timeout
>>
>>
>> And if the SQ/CQ handling are in the same thread, applications should use the
>> old API if they do not want to submit the request themselves.
>>
>> io_uring_get_sqe
>> io_uring_prep_nop
>> io_uring_wait_cqe_timeout
>
> Thanks, yes it's all clear to me now. I do wonder if we can't come up with
> something better than postfixing the functions with a 2, that seems kind of
> ugly and doesn't really convey to anyone what the difference is.
>
> Any suggestions for better naming?
>
how about io_uring_wait_cqe_timeout_nolock()? That means applications can use
the new APIs without synchronization.
Thanks,
Jiufei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-04 1:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-29 10:10 [PATCH liburing 0/2] add two interfaces for new timeout feature Jiufei Xue
2020-07-29 10:10 ` [PATCH liburing 1/2] io_uring_enter: add timeout support Jiufei Xue
2020-07-29 17:51 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-30 2:32 ` Jiufei Xue
2020-07-30 15:28 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-31 2:12 ` Jiufei Xue
2020-07-31 2:56 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-31 3:16 ` Jiufei Xue
2020-07-31 3:57 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-03 3:16 ` Jiufei Xue
2020-08-03 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-03 19:16 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2020-08-04 1:29 ` Jiufei Xue [this message]
2020-08-04 4:50 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-04 5:04 ` Jiufei Xue
2020-08-04 5:19 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-29 10:10 ` [PATCH liburing 2/2] test/timeout: add testcase for new timeout interface Jiufei Xue
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 \
--in-reply-to=8be505f3-17fc-9a49-1e5e-286d61c435fa@linux.alibaba.com \
[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