From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>,
Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:51:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 6/10/21 4:38 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 10:03 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/9/21 11:08 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
>>> It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns
>>> EAGAIN,
>>> the data becomes available between that failure and the call to
>>> vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler().
>>>
>>> Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster
>>> than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq.
>>
>> The poll stuff is not perfect and definitely can be improved,
>> but there are drawbacks, with this one fairness may suffer
>> with higher submit batching and make lat worse for all
>> but one request.
>>
>> I'll get to it and another poll related email later,
>> probably next week.
>>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> I am looking forward to see the improved solution that you succeed
> coming up with.
>
> However, I want to bring 1 detail to your attention in case that it
> went unnoticed.
>
> If io_arm_poll_handler() returns false because vfs_poll() returns a non
> zero value, reissuing the sqe will be attempted at most only 1 time
> because req->flags will have REQ_F_POLLED and on the second time
> io_arm_poll_handler() will be called, it will immediately return false.
>
> With this detail in mind, I honestly did not think that this would make
> the function unfair for the other requests in a batch submission
> compared to the cost of pushing the request to io-wq that possibly
> includes an io worker thread creation.
>
> Does this detail can change your verdict?
> If not, I would really be interested to know more about your fairness
> concern.
Right, but it still stalls other requests and IIRC there are people
not liking the syscall already taking too long. Consider
io_req_task_queue(), adds more overhead but will delay execution
to the syscall exit.
In any case, would be great to have numbers, e.g. to see if
io_req_task_queue() is good enough, how often your problem
takes places and how much it gives us.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <[email protected]>
2021-06-10 9:03 ` [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation Pavel Begunkov
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2021-06-10 15:51 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-06-10 17:56 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-10 19:32 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-11 3:55 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-17 18:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-18 22:45 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 20:55 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 21:31 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 22:04 ` Pavel Begunkov
[not found] <[email protected]>
2021-06-16 12:48 ` Jens Axboe
2021-06-18 21:38 ` Olivier Langlois
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] \
[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