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 --]
next prev 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