On 15/06/2020 18:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/15/20 8:48 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>>> On 6/15/20 3:24 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>>>> In io_complete_rw_iopoll(), stores to io_kiocb's result and iopoll
>>>> completed are two independent store operations, to ensure that once
>>>> iopoll_completed is ture and then req->result must been perceived by
>>>> the cpu executing io_do_iopoll(), proper memory barrier should be used.
>>>>
>>>> And in io_do_iopoll(), we check whether req->result is EAGAIN, if it is,
>>>> we'll need to issue this io request using io-wq again. In order to just
>>>> issue a single smp_rmb() on the completion side, move the re-submit work
>>>> to io_iopoll_complete().
>>>
>>> Did you actually test this one?
>> I only run test cases in liburing/test in a vm.
>>
>>>
>>>> @@ -1736,11 +1748,20 @@ static void io_iopoll_complete(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned int *nr_events,
>>>> {
>>>> struct req_batch rb;
>>>> struct io_kiocb *req;
>>>> + LIST_HEAD(again);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* order with ->result store in io_complete_rw_iopoll() */
>>>> + smp_rmb();
>>>>
>>>> rb.to_free = rb.need_iter = 0;
>>>> while (!list_empty(done)) {
>>>> int cflags = 0;
>>>>
>>>> + if (READ_ONCE(req->result) == -EAGAIN) {
>>>> + req->iopoll_completed = 0;
>>>> + list_move_tail(&req->list, &again);
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>> req = list_first_entry(done, struct io_kiocb, list);
>>>> list_del(&req->list);
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're using 'req' here before you initialize it...
>> Sorry, next time when I submit patches, I'll construct test cases which
>> will cover my codes changes.
>
> I'm surprised the compiler didn't complain, or that the regular testing
> didn't barf on it.
>
> Don't think you need a new test case for this, the iopoll test case
> should cover it, if you limit the queue depth on the device by
> setting /sys/block/<dev>/queue/nr_requests to 2 or something like
> that.
Hmm, nice hint. I hooked a dirty ->iopoll in null_blk with fault
injection for that
--
Pavel Begunkov
