From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 0/7] reworking io_uring's poll and internal poll
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 19:40:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 12/17/21 15:02, Hao Xu wrote:
> 在 2021/12/16 上午6:08, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
>> That's mostly a bug fixing set, some of the problems are listed in 5/7.
>> The main part is 5/7, which is bulky but at this point it's hard (if
>> possible) to do anything without breaking a dozen of things on the
>> way, so I consider it necessary evil.
>> It also addresses one of two problems brought up by Eric Biggers
>> for aio, specifically poll rewait. There is no poll-free support yet.
>>
>> As a side effect it also changes performance characteristics, adding
>> extra atomics but removing io_kiocb referencing, improving rewait, etc.
>> There are also drafts on optimising locking needed for hashing, those
>> will go later.
> Great, seems now we can have per node bit lock for hash list.
Yeah, might be. One idea is to put it under mutex_lock. Interesting
what kind of performance difference it'd make, e.g. [1] but would need
some combined approach. Also was thinking for getting rid of hashing at
all for polling fixed files, may be promising, but would need some extra
bits for fixed files removal.
[1] https://github.com/isilence/linux/commit/5613ffd53141df98ae4a4a75b043b4d7ad252b2b
>> Performance measurements is a TODO, but the main goal lies in
>> correctness and maintainability.
>>
>> Pavel Begunkov (7):
>> io_uring: remove double poll on poll update
>> io_uring: refactor poll update
>> io_uring: move common poll bits
>> io_uring: kill poll linking optimisation
>> io_uring: poll rework
>> io_uring: single shot poll removal optimisation
>> io_uring: use completion batching for poll rem/upd
>>
>> fs/io_uring.c | 649 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 287 insertions(+), 362 deletions(-)
>>
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-17 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-15 22:08 [PATCH for-next 0/7] reworking io_uring's poll and internal poll Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 1/7] io_uring: remove double poll on poll update Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 2/7] io_uring: refactor " Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 3/7] io_uring: move common poll bits Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 4/7] io_uring: kill poll linking optimisation Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 5/7] io_uring: poll rework Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 6/7] io_uring: single shot poll removal optimisation Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-15 22:08 ` [PATCH 7/7] io_uring: use completion batching for poll rem/upd Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-17 15:02 ` [PATCH for-next 0/7] reworking io_uring's poll and internal poll Hao Xu
2021-12-17 19:40 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-12-28 17:51 ` Jens Axboe
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] \
/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