All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Papadakis <>
To: Dmitry Sychov <>
Cc: "H. de Vries" <>,
	io-uring <>
Subject: Re: Any performance gains from using per thread(thread local) urings?
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:56:36 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

For what it’s worth, I am (also) using using multiple “reactor” (i.e event driven) cores, each associated with one OS thread, and each reactor core manages its own io_uring context/queues.

Even if scheduling all SQEs through a single io_uring SQ — by e.g collecting all such SQEs in every OS thread and then somehow “moving” them to the one OS thread that manages the SQ so that it can enqueue them all -- is very cheap, you ‘d still need to drain the CQ from that thread and presumably process those CQEs in a single OS thread, which will definitely be more work than having each reactor/OS thread dequeue CQEs for SQEs that itself submitted. 
You could have a single OS thread just for I/O and all other threads could do something else but you’d presumably need to serialize access/share state between them and the one OS thread for I/O which maybe a scalability bottleneck.

( if you are curious, you can read about it here )

If you experiment with the various possible designs though, I’d love it if you were to share your findings.


> On 13 May 2020, at 2:01 PM, Dmitry Sychov <> wrote:
> Hi Hielke,
>> If you want max performance, what you generally will see in non-blocking servers is one event loop per core/thread.
>> This means one ring per core/thread. Of course there is no simple answer to this.
>> See how thread-based servers work vs non-blocking servers. E.g. Apache vs Nginx or Tomcat vs Netty.
> I think a lot depends on the internal uring implementation. To what
> degree the kernel is able to handle multiple urings independently,
> without much congestion points(like updates of the same memory
> locations from multiple threads), thus taking advantage of one ring
> per CPU core.
> For example, if the tasks from multiple rings are later combined into
> single input kernel queue (effectively forming a congestion point) I
> see
> no reason to use exclusive ring per core in user space.
> [BTW in Windows IOCP is always one input+output queue for all(active) threads].
> Also we could pop out multiple completion events from a single CQ at
> once to spread the handling to cores-bound threads .
> I thought about one uring per core at first, but now I'am not sure -
> maybe the kernel devs have something to add to the discussion?
> P.S. uring is the main reason I'am switching from windows to linux dev
> for client-sever app so I want to extract the max performance possible
> out of this new exciting uring stuff. :)
> Thanks, Dmitry

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-13 11:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-12 20:20 Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13  6:07 ` H. de Vries
2020-05-13 11:01   ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13 11:56     ` Mark Papadakis [this message]
2020-05-13 13:15       ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13 13:27         ` Mark Papadakis
2020-05-13 13:48           ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13 14:12           ` Sergiy Yevtushenko
     [not found]           ` <>
2020-05-13 14:22             ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13 14:31               ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-13 16:02               ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-13 19:23                 ` Dmitry Sychov
2020-05-14 10:06                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-14 11:35                     ` Dmitry Sychov

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Any performance gains from using per thread(thread local) urings?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.