linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Various io_uring micro-optimizations (reducing lock contention)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7c33ba12-2ec4-4692-b388-58950d42a0a2@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 08:38:42 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
Cc: asml.silence@...il.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Various io_uring micro-optimizations (reducing lock
 contention)

On 2/1/25 8:30 AM, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 4:26 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>> Not a huge fan of adding more epoll logic to io_uring, but you are right
>>> this case may indeed make sense as it allows you to integrate better
>>> that way in existing event loops. I'll take a look.
>>
>> Here's a series doing that:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux/log/?h=io_uring-epoll-wait
>>
>> Could actually work pretty well - the last patch adds multishot support
>> as well, which means we can avoid the write lock dance for repeated
>> triggers of this epoll event. That should actually end up being more
>> efficient than regular epoll_wait(2).
> 
> Nice, thanks Jens! I will integrate this in our I/O event loop and
> test it next week. This will eliminate the io_uring poll wakeup
> overhead completely.

That'd be great, let us know how it goes!

-- 
Jens Axboe