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 23:56:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1919 bytes --]
On 19/03/2020 21:56, Jens Axboe wrote:
> if (hash != -1U) {
> + /*
> + * If the local list is non-empty, then we
> + * have work that hashed to the same key.
> + * No need for a lock round-trip, or fiddling
> + * the the free/busy state of the worker, or
> + * clearing the hashed state. Just process the
> + * next one.
> + */
> + if (!work) {
> + work = wq_first_entry(&list,
> + struct io_wq_work,
> + list);
> + if (work) {
> + wq_node_del(&list, &work->list);
> + goto got_work;
> + }
> + }
> +
> spin_lock_irq(&wqe->lock);
> wqe->hash_map &= ~BIT_ULL(hash);
> wqe->flags &= ~IO_WQE_FLAG_STALLED;
Let's have an example, where "->" is a link
req0(hash=0) -> req1(not_hashed)
req2(hash=0)
1. it grabs @req0 (@work=@req0) and @req1 (in the local @list)
2. it do @req0->func(), sets @work=@req1 and goes to the hash updating code (see
above).
3. ```if (!work)``` check fails, and it clears @hash_map, even though there is
one of the same hash in the list. It messes up @hash_map accounting, but
probably even can continue working fine.
4. Next, it goes for the second iteration (work == req1), do ->func().
Then checks @hash, which is -1 for non-hashed req1, and exits leaving req2 in
the @list.
Can miss something by looking at diff only, but there are 2 potential points to
fix.
BTW, yours patch executes all linked requests first and then goes to the next
hashed. Mine do hashed first, and re-enqueue linked requests. The downside in my
version is the extra re-enqueue. And your approach can't do some cases in
parallel, e.g. the following is purely sequential:
req0(hash0) -> ... long link ->
req1(hash0) -> ... long link ->
req2(hash0) -> ... long link ->
req3(hash0) -> ... long link ->
It's not hard to convert, though
--
Pavel Begunkov
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-22 20:57 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
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 [this message]
-- 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