[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200520080357.GA4197@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:03:57 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set
data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:04:24AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:18:23AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 05:30:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:54:20AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > As Thomas clarified, workqueue hasn't such issue any more, and only other
> > > > per CPU kthreads can run until the CPU clears the online bit.
> > > >
> > > > So the question is if IO can be submitted from such kernel context?
> > >
> > > What other per-CPU kthreads even exist?
> >
> > I don't know, so expose to wider audiences.
>
> One user is io uring with IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL & IORING_SETUP_SQ_AFF, see
> io_sq_offload_start(), and it is a IO submission kthread.
As far as I can tell that code is buggy, as it still needs to migrate
the thread away when the cpu is offlined. This isn't a per-cpu kthread
in the sene of having one for each CPU.
Jens?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists