archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <>
To: Pavel Begunkov <>,
	Victor Stewart <>,
	io-uring <>
Subject: Re: io_uring_prep_timeout_update on linked timeouts
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 07:43:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 8/28/21 7:39 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 8/28/21 4:22 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 8/26/21 7:40 PM, Victor Stewart wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:27 AM Victor Stewart <> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:43 PM Victor Stewart <> wrote:
>>>>> we're able to update timeouts with io_uring_prep_timeout_update
>>>>> without having to cancel
>>>>> and resubmit, has it ever been considered adding this ability to
>>>>> linked timeouts?
>>>> whoops turns out this does work. just tested it.
>>> doesn't work actually. missed that because of a bit of misdirection.
>>> returns -ENOENT.
>>> the problem with the current way of cancelling then resubmitting
>>> a new a timeout linked op (let's use poll here) is you have 3 situations:
>>> 1) the poll triggers and you get some positive value. all good.
>>> 2) the linked timeout triggers and cancels the poll, so the poll
>>> operation returns -ECANCELED.
>>> 3) you cancel the existing poll op, and submit a new one with
>>> the updated linked timeout. now the original poll op returns
>>> so solely from looking at the return value of the poll op in 2) and 3)
>>> there is no way to disambiguate them. of course the linked timeout
>>> operation result will allow you to do so, but you'd have to persist state
>>> across cqe processings. you can also track the cancellations and know
>>> to skip the explicitly cancelled ops' cqes (which is what i chose).
>>> there's also the problem of efficiency. you can imagine in a QUIC
>>> server where you're constantly updating that poll timeout in response
>>> to idle timeout and ACK scheduling, this extra work mounts.
>>> so i think the ability to update linked timeouts via
>>> io_uring_prep_timeout_update would be fantastic.
>> Hmm, I'll need to dig a bit, but whether it's a linked timeout or not
>> should not matter. It's a timeout, it's queued and updated the same way.
>> And we even check this in some of the liburing tests.
> We don't keep linked timeouts in ->timeout_list, so it's not
> supported and has never been. Should be doable, but we need
> to be careful synchronising with the link's head.

Yeah shoot you are right, I guess that explains the ENOENT. Would be
nice to add, though. Synchronization should not be that different from
dealing with regular timeouts.

Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-28 13:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-24 22:43 io_uring_prep_timeout_update on linked timeouts Victor Stewart
2021-08-25  1:27 ` Victor Stewart
2021-08-27  1:40   ` Victor Stewart
2021-08-28  3:22     ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-28 13:39       ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-28 13:43         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-08-28 21:38           ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-29  2:40             ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-31 11:36               ` Victor Stewart
2021-08-31 16:09                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-31 16:07               ` Pavel Begunkov

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 \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).