From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Mark Papadakis <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: io_uring and spurious wake-ups from eventfd
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 09:24:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 1/8/20 12:36 AM, Mark Papadakis wrote:
>
>
>> On 7 Jan 2020, at 10:34 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/7/20 1:26 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 1/7/20 8:55 AM, Mark Papadakis wrote:
>>>> This is perhaps an odd request, but if it’s trivial to implement
>>>> support for this described feature, it could help others like it ‘d
>>>> help me (I ‘ve been experimenting with io_uring for some time now).
>>>>
>>>> Being able to register an eventfd with an io_uring context is very
>>>> handy, if you e.g have some sort of reactor thread multiplexing I/O
>>>> using epoll etc, where you want to be notified when there are pending
>>>> CQEs to drain. The problem, such as it is, is that this can result in
>>>> un-necessary/spurious wake-ups.
>>>>
>>>> If, for example, you are monitoring some sockets for EPOLLIN, and when
>>>> poll says you have pending bytes to read from their sockets, and said
>>>> sockets are non-blocking, and for each some reported event you reserve
>>>> an SQE for preadv() to read that data and then you io_uring_enter to
>>>> submit the SQEs, because the data is readily available, as soon as
>>>> io_uring_enter returns, you will have your completions available -
>>>> which you can process. The “problem” is that poll will wake up
>>>> immediately thereafter in the next reactor loop iteration because
>>>> eventfd was tripped (which is reasonable but un-necessary).
>>>>
>>>> What if there was a flag for io_uring_setup() so that the eventfd
>>>> would only be tripped for CQEs that were processed asynchronously, or,
>>>> if that’s non-trivial, only for CQEs that reference file FDs?
>>>>
>>>> That’d help with that spurious wake-up.
>>>
>>> One easy way to do that would be for the application to signal that it
>>> doesn't want eventfd notifications for certain requests. Like using an
>>> IOSQE_ flag for that. Then you could set that on the requests you submit
>>> in response to triggering an eventfd event.
>>
>
>
> Thanks Jens,
>
> This is great, but perhaps there is a somewhat slightly more optimal
> way to do this. Ideally, io_uring should trip the eventfd if there
> are any new completions available, that haven’t been produced In the
> context of an io_uring_enter(). That is to say, if any SQEs can be
> immediately served (because data is readily available in
> Buffers/caches in the kernel), then their respective CQEs will be
> produced in the context of that io_uring_enter() that submitted said
> SQEs(and thus the CQEs can be processed immediately after
> io_uring_enter() returns). So, if any CQEs are placed in the
> respective ring at any other time, but not during an io_uring_enter()
> call, then it means those completions were produced asynchronously,
> and thus the eventfd can be tripped, otherwise, there is no need to
> trip the eventfd at all.
>
> e.g (pseudocode):
> void produce_completion(cfq_ctx *ctx, const bool in_io_uring_enter_ctx) {
> cqe_ring_push(cqe_from_ctx(ctx));
> if (false == in_io_uring_enter_ctx && eventfd_registered()) {
> trip_iouring_eventfd();
> } else {
> // don't bother
> }
> }
I see what you're saying, so essentially only trigger eventfd
notifications if the completions happen async. That does make a lot of
sense, and it would be cleaner than having to flag this per request as
well. I think we'd still need to make that opt-in as it changes the
behavior of it.
The best way to do that would be to add IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD_ASYNC or
something like that. Does the exact same thing as
IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, but only triggers it if completions happen
async.
What do you think?
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-08 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-07 15:55 io_uring and spurious wake-ups from eventfd Mark Papadakis
2020-01-07 20:26 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-07 20:34 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-08 7:36 ` Mark Papadakis
2020-01-08 16:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-01-08 16:46 ` Mark Papadakis
2020-01-08 16:50 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-08 17:20 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-08 18:08 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-09 6:09 ` Daurnimator
2020-01-09 15:14 ` 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