public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:13:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6f935fb9-6ebd-1df1-0cd0-69e34a16fa7e@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190924094942.GN2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 9/24/19 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> +struct io_wait_queue {
>> +	struct wait_queue_entry wq;
>> +	struct io_ring_ctx *ctx;
>> +	struct task_struct *task;
> 
> wq.private is where the normal waitqueue stores the task pointer.
> 
> (I'm going to rename that)

If you do that, then we can just base the io_uring parts on that. 

>> +	unsigned to_wait;
>> +	unsigned nr_timeouts;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static inline bool io_should_wake(struct io_wait_queue *iowq)
>> +{
>> +	struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = iowq->ctx;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Wake up if we have enough events, or if a timeout occured since we
>> +	 * started waiting. For timeouts, we always want to return to userspace,
>> +	 * regardless of event count.
>> +	 */
>> +	return io_cqring_events(ctx->rings) >= iowq->to_wait ||
>> +			atomic_read(&ctx->cq_timeouts) != iowq->nr_timeouts;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int io_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *curr, unsigned int mode,
>> +			    int wake_flags, void *key)
>> +{
>> +	struct io_wait_queue *iowq = container_of(curr, struct io_wait_queue,
>> +							wq);
>> +
>> +	if (io_should_wake(iowq)) {
>> +		list_del_init(&curr->entry);
>> +		wake_up_process(iowq->task);
> 
> Then you can use autoremove_wake_function() here.
> 
>> +		return 1;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return -1;
>> +}
> 
> Ideally we'd get wait_event()'s @cond in a custom wake function. Then we
> can _always_ do this.
> 
> This is one I'd love to have lambda functions for. It would actually
> work with GCC nested functions, because the wake function will always be
> in scope, but we can't use those in the kernel for other reasons :/

I'll be happy enough if I can just call autoremove_wake_function(), I
think that will simplify the case enough for io_uring to not really make
me care too much about going further. I'll leave that to you, if you
have the desire :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-24 10:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-22  8:08 [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting Pavel Begunkov (Silence)
2019-09-22  8:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/wait: Add wait_threshold Pavel Begunkov (Silence)
2019-09-23  7:19   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-23 16:37     ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-23 19:27       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-23 20:23         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-24  6:44         ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-22  8:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] io_uring: Optimise cq waiting with wait_threshold Pavel Begunkov (Silence)
2019-09-22 15:51 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting Jens Axboe
2019-09-23  8:35   ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-23 16:21     ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-23 16:32       ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-23 20:48         ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-23 23:00           ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  7:06             ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24  8:02               ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  8:27                 ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  8:36                   ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  9:33                     ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 10:11                       ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  9:49                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-24 10:13                       ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-09-24 10:34                         ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 11:11                           ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 11:15                             ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 11:23                               ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 13:13                                 ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 17:33                                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 17:46                                     ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 18:28                                       ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 19:32                                         ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 11:43                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-24 12:57                               ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24 11:33                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-24  9:20                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 10:09                     ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-24  9:21                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-09-24 10:09                   ` 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=6f935fb9-6ebd-1df1-0cd0-69e34a16fa7e@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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