public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jackie Liu <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: drain next sqe instead of shadowing
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:43:34 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 11/21/2019 12:26 PM, Jackie Liu wrote:
> 2019年11月21日 16:54,Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> 写道:
>>
>> If there is a DRAIN in the middle of a link, it uses shadow req. Defer
>> the next request/link instead. This:
>>
>> Pros:
>> 1. removes semi-duplicated code
>> 2. doesn't allocate memory for shadows
>> 3. works better if only the head marked for drain
> 
> I thought about this before, just only drain the head, but if the latter IO depends
> on the link-list, then latter IO will run in front of the link-list. If we think it
> is acceptable, then I think it is ok for me.

If I got your point right, latter requests won't run ahead of the
link-list. There shouldn't be change of behaviour.

The purpose of shadow requests is to mark some request right ahead of
the link for draining. This patch uses not a specially added shadow
request, but the following regular one. And, as drained IO shouldn't be
issued until every request behind completed, this should give the same
effect.

Am I missed something?

Just to notice, @drain_next is in @ctx, so it's preserved across
multiple io_enter_uring().
> --
> BR, Jackie Liu
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-11-21  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-20 23:07 [PATCH] io_uring: fix race with shadow drain deferrals Jens Axboe
2019-11-20 23:58 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21  1:32   ` Jackie Liu
2019-11-21  1:35     ` Jackie Liu
2019-11-21  1:40       ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21  1:49         ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21  1:57           ` Jackie Liu
2019-11-20 23:14             ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]               ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-20 23:03                 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21  8:54           ` [PATCH] io_uring: drain next sqe instead of shadowing Pavel Begunkov
     [not found]             ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-21  9:43               ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
     [not found]                 ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-21 12:40                   ` Pavel Begunkov
     [not found]                     ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-21 13:47                       ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]                         ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-21 13:54                           ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]                         ` <[email protected]>
2019-11-21 14:28                           ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-21 13:53                             ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21 15:23                               ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-21 13:50                                 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-21  1:39     ` [PATCH] io_uring: fix race with shadow drain deferrals 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] \
    [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