There are really a lot of different io_uring crates for rust. Some are quick bindings, some are specialized to particular application or runtime environments, some are doing deeper experiments to how they connect to the applications using the interface, I think I'll start looking at them to contrast their approaches in a little more detail.
First a little background on a number of different approaches a program can take in order to make I/O calls, be they to the network, disk, or some other device. This post is the first in a series of notes reviewing the tradeoffs of the various approaches at a high level, from different kinds of synchronous i/o calls to different kinds of asynchronous calls. Some focus on an environment where a program os running directly in an OS, but a lot of this also applies in other environments besides Rust.
The first part is below on a little background on Synchronous I/O and architectures that handle it, mostly a language independent discussion.
Synchronous I/O is the most common way to access data where program execution waits on calls to read or write data. It is supported by common system I/O apis (POSIX et al), and is simple, robust, and easy to reason about.
Calling a synchronous I/O call blocks further execution within a single process or thread, which is why these system calls are often referred to as blocking calls or a blocking api. If the needs of the program are only to get one operation done at a time this is not a big concern. But the blocking makes the use synchronous methods limited in the top throughput of progress that can be made from multiple operations or I/Os that can be made within a program at once. This can limit the responsiveness of a program to singular operations, in addition to increasing latency of response to operations that may be waiting.
The operating system doesn't stop when these calls are made, if there are other processes or threads, an OS scheduler can decide to make another process active to get work done while waiting on the I/O of the blocked process to be completed. In older computer architectures, the balance of time waiting for one blocking I/O call was a very reasonable optimization as the time of response of the underlying resouse, disk or network for example, could be used to switch through multipe contexts to run other processes.
But an application doesn't have to be stuck with only one blocked i/o call. And applications that care about higher throughput on dedicated systems may want an application to use more system resources.
Concurrent I/O Methods
There are ways to do more work in a computer system, and a program can arrange its architecture a different way to open more processes or threads with synchronous calls. For example, one can do this by spawning a thread for every operation that is anticipated to make a blocking call.
This does incur some overhead: eg on creation of thread/process specific stack memory regions, as well as the introduction of a need for some level of memory sharing locks/mutexes or messaging mechanisms so that the different threads can coordinate; more on that later. But the basic idea here is if the application wants to keep processing multiple operations, a thread can be created for each operation and if it blocks on a particular call, progress for the application overall can still be made over a number of threads. In this architecture, the system api calls are the same synchronous i/o calls as previously mentioned.
The advantage here is that the fairly simple i/o access interactions are preserved with the addition of the need for management of shared data structures. Typically the change isn't too different, as a separation of data for the overall application vs data for specific operations is one that can be cleanly layered.
A common pattern with this approach is to pre-spawn threads into a pool. From the pool threads are available to map new operations to open threads and otherwise queue ops to wait for a free thread. The pool gives a couple of advantages such as trading thread creation times for lower thread mapping times, in addition, it can create a natural point of control for the number of outstanding threads. The ability to limit the number of threads creates is sometimes important for controlling resource growth, robustness, and system optimization as the creation and context switching costs can increase with a large number of threads.
This optimization touches on some of the drawbacks of using a set of threads to form concurrency. Ironically within the OS, the internals of i/o access are generally implemented using asynchronous apis, with a support layer to receive userspace synchronous syscalls for i/o, which queues and manage those operations mapping to a more fundamental internal asynchronous i/o layer.
Enter Asynchronous I/O APIs
Beyond thread pools, another level of system performance for i/o involves use of asynchronous apis to access network and disk i/o. Note this is a different topic than the async/await Rust language support, it is what apis an OS offers up to applications to interact with their kernels and i/o subsystems. The access apis become less standardized:
- I/O Completion Ports
- BSD-Family / MacOS
- posix aio
- posix aio
- linux aio
The next part (if I ever find some time) will focus in on the Linux asynchronous apis and in particular io_uring and Rust crates accessing that interface.