Re: [PATCH] aio: convert the ioctx list to radix tree

From: Octavian Purdila
Date: Fri Mar 22 2013 - 20:21:54 EST

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 08:33:19PM +0200, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>> When using a large number of threads performing AIO operations the
>> IOCTX list may get a significant number of entries which will cause
>> significant overhead. For example, when running this fio script:
> Indeed. But you also need to consider the impact this change has on the
> typical case of only having one ctx in the mm. Please include
> measurements of that case in the commit message.

Hi Zach,

Good point, I will add those numbers.

>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c
>> @@ -831,7 +831,7 @@ int s390_enable_sie(void)
>> task_lock(tsk);
>> if (!tsk->mm || atomic_read(&tsk->mm->mm_users) > 1 ||
>> #ifdef CONFIG_AIO
>> - !hlist_empty(&tsk->mm->ioctx_list) ||
>> + tsk->mm->ioctx_rtree.rnode ||
>> #endif
> Boy, what a curious thing. I wonder if this is still needed if we're no
> longer storing the mm in the ctx after retry support is removed.
>> + err = radix_tree_insert(&mm->ioctx_rtree, ctx->user_id, ctx);
> Hmm. Is there anything stopping an exceptionally jerky app from racing
> io_setup() and munmap() and having two contexts be mapped to the same
> address and get the same user_id? I guess this would just return
> -EEXIST, then, not do anything terrible. I guess that's OK?

Ah, interesting, didn't thought of that. But I guess it is OK to keep
the WARN_ONCE there, as the application is not supposed to do the

>> + idx, sizeof(ctx)/sizeof(void *));
> And why bother tracking the starting idx? If you're completely draining
> it simply always start from 0?

I will fix these in the next version, thanks for reviewing !
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at