From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT events
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:00:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5723453a-9326-e954-978e-910b8b495b38@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200116155557.mwjc7vu33xespiag@steredhat>
On 1/16/20 8:55 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 08:29:07AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> io_uring_poll() sets EPOLLOUT flag if there is space in the
>>> SQ ring, then we should wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT
>>> events when we expose the new SQ head to the userspace.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Do you think is better to change the name of 'cq_wait' and 'cq_fasync'?
>>
>> I honestly think it'd be better to have separate waits for in/out poll,
>> the below patch will introduce some unfortunate cacheline traffic
>> between the submitter and completer side.
>
> Agree, make sense. I'll send a v2 with a new 'sq_wait'.
>
> About fasync, do you think could be useful the POLL_OUT support?
> In this case, maybe is not simple to have two separate fasync_struct,
> do you have any advice?
The fasync should not matter, it's all in the checking of whether the sq
side has any sleepers. This is rarely going to be the case, so as long
as we can keep the check cheap, then I think we're fine.
Since the use case is mostly single submitter, unless you're doing
something funky or unusual, you're not going to be needing POLLOUT ever.
Hence I don't want to add any cost for it, I'd even advocate just doing
waitqueue_active() perhaps, if we can safely pull it off.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-16 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-16 13:49 [PATCH] io_uring: wakeup threads waiting for EPOLLOUT events Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-16 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-16 15:55 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-16 16:00 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-01-16 16:26 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-16 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-16 17:03 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-23 19:13 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-23 21:45 ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-01-24 1:28 ` 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 \
--in-reply-to=5723453a-9326-e954-978e-910b8b495b38@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sgarzare@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).