From: Max Kellermann <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Various io_uring micro-optimizations (reducing lock contention)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:30:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKPOu+8Xi3oBz3zwr1bJx+LN=6cZN5eiBsrvRLZ_vOMJuOpZ9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 4:26 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not a huge fan of adding more epoll logic to io_uring, but you are right
> > this case may indeed make sense as it allows you to integrate better
> > that way in existing event loops. I'll take a look.
>
> Here's a series doing that:
>
> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux/log/?h=io_uring-epoll-wait
>
> Could actually work pretty well - the last patch adds multishot support
> as well, which means we can avoid the write lock dance for repeated
> triggers of this epoll event. That should actually end up being more
> efficient than regular epoll_wait(2).
Nice, thanks Jens! I will integrate this in our I/O event loop and
test it next week. This will eliminate the io_uring poll wakeup
overhead completely.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-01 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-28 13:39 [PATCH 0/8] Various io_uring micro-optimizations (reducing lock contention) Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 1/8] io_uring/io-wq: eliminate redundant io_work_get_acct() calls Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 2/8] io_uring/io-wq: add io_worker.acct pointer Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 3/8] io_uring/io-wq: move worker lists to struct io_wq_acct Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 4/8] io_uring/io-wq: cache work->flags in variable Max Kellermann
2025-01-29 18:57 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-29 19:11 ` Max Kellermann
2025-01-29 23:41 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-30 5:36 ` Max Kellermann
2025-01-30 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-31 14:06 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-30 14:54 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 5/8] io_uring/io-wq: do not use bogus hash value Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 6/8] io_uring/io-wq: pass io_wq to io_get_next_work() Max Kellermann
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 7/8] io_uring: cache io_kiocb->flags in variable Max Kellermann
2025-01-29 19:11 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-28 13:39 ` [PATCH 8/8] io_uring: skip redundant poll wakeups Max Kellermann
2025-01-31 13:54 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-31 17:16 ` Max Kellermann
2025-01-31 17:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-29 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/8] Various io_uring micro-optimizations (reducing lock contention) Jens Axboe
2025-01-29 17:39 ` Max Kellermann
2025-01-29 17:45 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-29 18:01 ` Max Kellermann
2025-01-31 16:13 ` Jens Axboe
2025-02-01 15:25 ` Jens Axboe
2025-02-01 15:30 ` Max Kellermann [this message]
2025-02-01 15:38 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-29 19:30 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-29 19:43 ` Max Kellermann
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='CAKPOu+8Xi3oBz3zwr1bJx+LN=6cZN5eiBsrvRLZ_vOMJuOpZ9Q@mail.gmail.com' \
[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