From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:48:52 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ff0aab90-9aef-4ec6-f00f-89d4ffa21ef6@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60c13bec.1c69fb81.f2c1e.6444SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
On 6/9/21 4:08 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns EAGAIN,
> the data becomes available between that failure and the call to
> vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler().
>
> Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster
> than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq.
I think this is obviously the right thing to do, but I'm not too crazy
about the 'ret' pointer passed in. We could either add a proper return
type instead of the bool and use that, or put the poll-or-queue-async
into a helper that then only needs a bool return, and use that return
value for whether to re-issue or not.
Care to send an updated variant?
--
Jens Axboe
next parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <60c13bec.1c69fb81.f2c1e.6444SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
2021-06-16 12:48 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-06-18 21:38 ` [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation Olivier Langlois
[not found] <60c13bec.1c69fb81.73967.f06dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
2021-06-10 9:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
[not found] ` <4b5644bff43e072a98a19d7a5ca36bb5e11497ec.camel@trillion01.com>
2021-06-10 15:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-10 17:56 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-10 19:32 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-11 3:55 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-17 18:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-18 22:45 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 20:55 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-20 21:31 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-06-20 22:04 ` 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:
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=ff0aab90-9aef-4ec6-f00f-89d4ffa21ef6@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olivier@trillion01.com \
/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).