Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1569139018.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <a4996ae7-ac0a-447b-49b2-7e96275aad29@kernel.dk>
 <20190923083549.GA42487@gmail.com>
 <c15b2d54-c722-8fb4-266f-b589c1a21aa5@gmail.com>
 <df612e90-8999-0085-d2d6-4418e044e429@gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <731b2087-7786-5374-68ff-8cba42f0cd68@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:48:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <df612e90-8999-0085-d2d6-4418e044e429@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/23/19 10:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> Sorry, mixed the threads.
> 
>>>
>>> I'm not sure an extension is needed for such a special interface, why not
>>> just put a ->threshold value next to the ctx->wait field and use either
>>> the regular wait_event() APIs with the proper condition, or
>>> wait_event_cmd() style APIs if you absolutely need something more complex
>>> to happen inside?
> Ingo,
> io_uring works well without this patch just using wait_event_*() with
> proper condition, but there are performance issues with spurious
> wakeups. Detailed description in the previous mail.
> Am I missing something?

I think we can do the same thing, just wrapping the waitqueue in a
structure with a count in it, on the stack. Got some flight time
coming up later today, let me try and cook up a patch.

-- 
Jens Axboe