public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io-wq: handle hashed writes in chains
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:25:30 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1432 bytes --]

On 22/03/2020 22:51, Jens Axboe wrote:
> commit f1d96a8fcbbbb22d4fbc1d69eaaa678bbb0ff6e2
> Author: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
> Date:   Fri Mar 13 22:29:14 2020 +0300
> 
>     io_uring: NULL-deref for IOSQE_{ASYNC,DRAIN}
> 
> which is what I ran into as well last week...

I picked it before testing

> The extra memory isn't a bit deal, it's very minor. My main concern
> would be fairness, since we'd then be grabbing non-contig hashed chunks,
> before we did not. May not be a concern as long as we ensure the
> non-hasned (and differently hashed) work can proceed in parallel. For my
> end, I deliberately added:

Don't think it's really a problem, all ordering/scheduling is up to users (i.e.
io_uring), and it can't infinitely postpone a work, because it's processing
spliced requests without taking more, even if new ones hash to the same bit.

> +	/* already have hashed work, let new worker get this */
> +	if (ret) {
> +		struct io_wqe_acct *acct;
> +
> +		/* get new worker for unhashed, if none now */
> +		acct = io_work_get_acct(wqe, work);
> +		if (!atomic_read(&acct->nr_running))
> +			io_wqe_wake_worker(wqe, acct);
> +		break;
> +	}
> 
> to try and improve that.

Is there performance problems with your patch without this chunk? I may see
another problem with yours, I need to think it through.

> 
> I'll run a quick test with yours.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-03-22 20:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-19 18:56 [PATCH v2] io-wq: handle hashed writes in chains Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 16:09 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 16:24   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 17:08     ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 18:54     ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 19:51       ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 20:05         ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 20:15           ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 20:20             ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 21:16               ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 21:31                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 20:25         ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-03-23  1:37           ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-23  8:38             ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-23 14:26               ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 17:08   ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-22 17:37     ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-22 20:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-03-23 19:57 Pavel Begunkov
2020-03-24  2:31 ` 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