Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] io_uring/io-wq: try to batch multiple free work

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/21/25 19:44, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 2/21/25 04:19, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
Currently, in case we don't use IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN, when io
worker frees work, it needs to add a task work. This creates contention
on tctx->task_list. With this commit, io work queues free work on a
local list and batch multiple free work in one call when the number of
free work in local list exceeds IO_REQ_ALLOC_BATCH.

I see no relation to IO_REQ_ALLOC_BATCH, that should be
a separate macro.

Signed-off-by: Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  io_uring/io-wq.c    | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
  io_uring/io-wq.h    |  4 ++-
  io_uring/io_uring.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---
  io_uring/io_uring.h |  6 ++++-
  4 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
index 5d0928f37471..096711707db9 100644
--- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
+++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
...
@@ -601,7 +622,41 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct io_wq_acct *acct,
              wq->do_work(work);
              io_assign_current_work(worker, NULL);
  -            linked = wq->free_work(work);
+            /*
+             * All requests in free list must have the same
+             * io_ring_ctx.
+             */
+            if (last_added_ctx && last_added_ctx != req->ctx) {
+                flush_req_free_list(&free_list, tail);
+                tail = NULL;
+                last_added_ctx = NULL;
+                free_req = 0;
+            }
+
+            /*
+             * Try to batch free work when
+             * !IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN to reduce contention
+             * on tctx->task_list.
+             */
+            if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN)
+                linked = wq->free_work(work, NULL, NULL);
+            else
+                linked = wq->free_work(work, &free_list, &did_free);

The problem here is that iowq is blocking and hence you lock up resources
of already completed request for who knows how long. In case of unbound
requests (see IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND) it's indefinite, and it's absolutely
cannot be used without some kind of a timer. But even in case of bound
work, it can be pretty long.
That's a good point, I've overlooked the fact that work handler might block indefinitely.
Maybe, for bound requests it can target N like here, but read jiffies
in between each request and flush if it has been too long. So in worst
case the total delay is the last req execution time + DT. But even then
it feels wrong, especially with filesystems sometimes not even
honouring NOWAIT.

The question is, why do you force it into the worker pool with the
IOSQE_ASYNC flag? It's generally not recommended, and the name of the
flag is confusing as it should've been more like "WORKER_OFFLOAD".


I launched more workers to parallel the work handler, but as you said, it seems like an incorrect use case.

However, I think the request free seems heavy, we need to create a task work so that we can hold the uring_lock to queue the request to ctx->submit_state->compl_reqs. Let me play around more to see if I can find an optimization for this.


Sorry for messing up in the previous reply, I've resent the reply for better read.

Quang Minh.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux