[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ab4c8bd-3e82-e87b-1ae8-3b32ced72009@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 17:29:15 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait
On 6/1/21 5:01 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/1/21 9:58 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 4:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/1/21 8:58 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Add futex wait requests, those always go through io-wq for simplicity.
>>>
>>> Not a huge fan of that, I think this should tap into the waitqueue
>>> instead and just rely on the wakeup callback to trigger the event. That
>>> would be a lot more efficient than punting to io-wq, both in terms of
>>> latency on trigger, but also for efficiency if the app is waiting on a
>>> lot of futexes.
>>
>> Yes, that would be preferable, but looks futexes don't use
>> waitqueues but some manual enqueuing into a plist_node, see
>> futex_wait_queue_me() or mark_wake_futex().
>> Did I miss it somewhere?
>
> Yes, we'd need to augment that with a callback. I do think that's going
Yeah, that was the first idea, but it's also more intrusive for the
futex codebase. Can be piled on top for next revision of patches.
A question to futex maintainers, how much resistance to merging
something like that I may expect?
> to be necessary, I don't see the io-wq solution working well outside of
> the most basic of use cases. And even for that, it won't be particularly
> efficient for single waits.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists