public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier Langlois <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: io_uring NAPI busy poll RCU is causing 50 context switches/second to my sqpoll thread
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:05:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)

if you are interested into all the details,

they are all here:
https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/1190

it seems like I like to write a lot when I am investigating a problem.
Pavel has been a great help in assisting me understanding what was
happening.

Next, I came to question where the integration of RCU came from and I
have found this:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

I guess that in some use-case being able to dynamically manage hundreds
of NAPI devices automatically that can suddenly all be swepted over
during a device reconfiguration is something desirable to have for
some...

but in my case, this is an excessively a high price to pay for a
flexibility that I do not need at all.

I have a single NAPI device. Once I know what it is, it will pratically
remain immutable until termination.

For that reason, I am thinking that offering some sort of polymorphic
NAPI device tracking strategy customization would be desirable.

The current one, the RCU one, I would call it the

dynamic_napi_tracking (rcu could be peppered in the name somewhere so
people know what the strategy is up to)

where as the new one that I am imagining would be called

static_napi_tracking.

NAPI devices would be added/removed by the user manually through an
extended registration function.

for the sake of conveniance, a clear_list operation could even be
offered.

The benefits of this new static tracking strategy would be numerous:
- this removes the need to invoke the heavy duty RCU cavalry
- no need to scan the list to remove stall devices
- no need to search the list at each SQE submission to update the
device timeout value

So is this a good idea in your opinion?


             reply	other threads:[~2024-07-30 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-30 20:05 Olivier Langlois [this message]
2024-07-30 20:25 ` io_uring NAPI busy poll RCU is causing 50 context switches/second to my sqpoll thread Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-30 23:14   ` Olivier Langlois
2024-07-31  0:33     ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-31  1:00       ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-08-01 23:05         ` Olivier Langlois
2024-08-01 22:02       ` Olivier Langlois
2024-08-02 15:22         ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-08-03 14:15           ` Olivier Langlois
2024-08-03 14:36             ` Jens Axboe
2024-08-03 16:50               ` Olivier Langlois
2024-08-03 21:37               ` 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 \
    --in-reply-to=b1ad0ab3a7e70b72aa73b0b7cab83273358b2e1d.camel@trillion01.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