Message-ID: <ad5d6234-b11d-7ac6-0218-78058df99712@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 17:50:28 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] optimise local-tw task resheduling
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1678474375.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
 <9250606d-4998-96f6-aeaf-a5904d7027e3@kernel.dk>
 <ee962f58-1074-0480-333b-67b360ea8b87@gmail.com>
 <9322c9ab-6bf5-b717-9f25-f5e55954db7b@kernel.dk>
 <4ed9ee1e-db0f-b164-4558-f3afa279dd4f@gmail.com>
 <c433f8cf-57dc-52c9-9959-f6a21297d1b0@kernel.dk>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c433f8cf-57dc-52c9-9959-f6a21297d1b0@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/13/23 14:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/12/23 9:45?PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> Didn't take a closer look just yet, but I grok the concept. One
>>>>> immediate thing I'd want to change is the FACILE part of it. Let's call
>>>>> it something a bit more straightforward, perhaps LIGHT? Or LIGHTWEIGHT?
>>>>
>>>> I don't really care, will change, but let me also ask why?
>>>> They're more or less synonyms, though facile is much less
>>>> popular. Is that your reasoning?
>>
>>> Yep, it's not very common and the name should be self-explanatory
>>> immediately for most people.
>>
>> That's exactly the problem. Someone will think that it's
>> like normal tw but "better" and blindly apply it. Same happened
>> before with priority tw lists.
> 
> But the way to fix that is not through obscure naming, it's through
> better and more frequent review. Naming is hard, but naming should be
> basically self-explanatory in terms of why it differs from not setting
> that flag. LIGHTWEIGHT and friends isn't great either, maybe it should
> just be explicit in that this task_work just posts a CQE and hence it's
> pointless to wake the task to run it unless it'll then meet the criteria
> of having that task exit its wait loop as it now has enough CQEs
> available. IO_UF_TWQ_CQE_POST or something like that. Then if it at some

There are 2 expectations (will add a comment)
1) it's posts no more that 1 CQE, 0 is fine

2) it's not urgent, including that it doesn't lock out scarce
[system wide] resources. DMA mappings come to mind as an example.

IIRC is a problem even now with nvme passthrough and DEFER_TASKRUN

> point gets modified to also encompass different types of task_work that
> should not cause wakes, then it can change again. Just tossing
> suggestions out there...

I honestly don't see how LIGHTWEIGHT is better. I think a proper
name would be _LAZY_WAKE or maybe _DEFERRED_WAKE. It doesn't tell
much about why you would want it, but at least sets expectations
what it does. Only needs a comment that multishot is not supported.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov