On 12/20/20 6:00 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 20/12/2020 07:13, Josef wrote: >>> Guys, do you share rings between processes? Explicitly like sending >>> io_uring fd over a socket, or implicitly e.g. sharing fd tables >>> (threads), or cloning with copying fd tables (and so taking a ref >>> to a ring). >> >> no in netty we don't share ring between processes >> >>> In other words, if you kill all your io_uring applications, does it >>> go back to normal? >> >> no at all, the io-wq worker thread is still running, I literally have >> to restart the vm to go back to normal(as far as I know is not >> possible to kill kernel threads right?) >> >>> Josef, can you test the patch below instead? Following Jens' idea it >>> cancels more aggressively when a task is killed or exits. It's based >>> on [1] but would probably apply fine to for-next. >> >> it works, I run several tests with eventfd read op async flag enabled, >> thanks a lot :) you are awesome guys :) > > Thanks for testing and confirming! Either we forgot something in > io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill() and it just can't cancel some requests, > or we have a dependency that prevents release from happening. Just a guess - Josef, is the eventfd for the ring fd itself? BTW, the io_wq_cancel_all() in io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill() needs to go. We should just use targeted cancelation - that's cleaner, and the cancel all will impact ATTACH_WQ as well. Separate thing to fix, though. -- Jens Axboe
