On 1/7/2021 2:33 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 07/01/2021 22:14, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:On 1/7/2021 1:37 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:On 07/01/2021 21:21, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:Because it's do quiesce, fixed read/write access buffers from asynchronous contexts without synchronisation. That won't work anymore, so 1. either we save it in advance, that would require extra req_async allocation for linked fixed rw 2. or synchronise whenever async. But that would mean that a request may get and do IO on two different buffers, that's rotten. 3. do mixed -- lazy, but if do IO then alloc. 3.5 also "synchronise" there would mean uring_lock, that's not welcome, but we can probably do rcu.Are you referring to a case where a fixed buffer request can be submitted from async context while those buffers are being unregistered, or something like that?Let me think of a patch...The most convenient API would be [1], it selects a buffer during submission, but allocates if needs to go async or for all linked requests. [2] should be correct from the kernel perspective (no races), it also solves doing IO on 2 different buffers, that's nasty (BTW, [1] solves this problem naturally). However, a buffer might be selected async, but the following can happen, and user should wait for request completion before removing a buffer. 1. register buf id=0 2. syscall io_uring_enter(submit=RW_FIXED,buf_id=0,IOSQE_ASYNC) 3. unregister buffers 4. the request may not find the buffer and fail. Not very convenient + can actually add overhead on the userspace side, can be even some heavy synchronisation. uring_lock in [2] is not nice, but I think I can replace it with rcu, probably can even help with sharing, but I need to try to implement to be sure. So that's an open question what API to have. Neither of diffs is tested. [1] diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index 7e35283fc0b1..2171836a9ce3 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -826,6 +826,7 @@ static const struct io_op_def io_op_defs[] = { .needs_file = 1, .unbound_nonreg_file = 1, .pollin = 1, + .needs_async_data = 1, .plug = 1, .async_size = sizeof(struct io_async_rw), .work_flags = IO_WQ_WORK_BLKCG | IO_WQ_WORK_MM, @@ -835,6 +836,7 @@ static const struct io_op_def io_op_defs[] = { .hash_reg_file = 1, .unbound_nonreg_file = 1, .pollout = 1, + .needs_async_data = 1, .plug = 1, .async_size = sizeof(struct io_async_rw), .work_flags = IO_WQ_WORK_BLKCG | IO_WQ_WORK_FSIZE | [2] diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index 7e35283fc0b1..31560b879fb3 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -3148,7 +3148,12 @@ static ssize_t io_import_iovec(int rw, struct io_kiocb *req, opcode = req->opcode; if (opcode == IORING_OP_READ_FIXED || opcode == IORING_OP_WRITE_FIXED) { *iovec = NULL; - return io_import_fixed(req, rw, iter); + + io_ring_submit_lock(req->ctx, needs_lock); + lockdep_assert_held(&req->ctx->uring_lock); + ret = io_import_fixed(req, rw, iter); + io_ring_submit_unlock(req->ctx, needs_lock); + return ret; } /* buffer index only valid with fixed read/write, or buffer select */ @@ -3638,7 +3643,7 @@ static int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock, copy_iov: /* some cases will consume bytes even on error returns */ iov_iter_revert(iter, io_size - iov_iter_count(iter)); - ret = io_setup_async_rw(req, iovec, inline_vecs, iter, false); + ret = io_setup_async_rw(req, iovec, inline_vecs, iter, true); if (!ret) return -EAGAIN; }For my understanding, is [1] essentially about stashing the iovec for the fixed IO in an io_async_rw struct and referencing it in async context?Yes, like that. It actually doesn't use iov but employs bvec, which it gets from struct io_mapped_ubuf, and stores it inside iter.I don't understand how this prevents unregistering the buffer (described by the iovec) while the IO takes place.The bvec itself is guaranteed to be alive during the whole lifetime of the request, that's because of all that percpu_ref in nodes. However, the table storing buffers (i.e. ctx->user_bufs) may be overwritten. reg/unreg/update happens with uring_lock held, as well as submission. Hence if we always grab a buffer during submission it will be fine.So because of the uring_lock being held, if we implement [1], then once we grab a fixed buffer during submission, we are guaranteed that the IO successfully completes, even if the buffer table is overwritten?There are two separate things. 1. bvec itself. Currently quiesce guarantees its validity, and for your patches node->refs keeps it. 2. the table where bvecs are stored, i.e. array of pointers to bvecs. Naturally, it's racy to read and write in parallel and not synchronised from it. Currently it's also synchronised by quiesce, but [1] and [2] sync it with uring_lock, but in a different fashion. I may be able to replace uring_lock there with RCU.Would the bvec persistence help us with buffer sharing and the deadlock scenario you brought up as well? If the sharing task wouldn't have to block for the attached tasks to get rid of their references, it seems that any outstanding IO would complete successfully.bvecs (1.) should be fine/easy to do, one of the problems is the table itself (2.). When I get time I'll look into RCU option, and I have a hunch it would help with it as well. But IIRC there are other issues.My concern however is what would happen if the sharing task actually *frees* its buffers after returning from unregister, since those buffers would still live in the buf_data, right?Don't remember the patch, but it must not. That should be the easy part because we can rely on node::refs
The buffer sharing patch is the last one, #13.
Taking a step back, what is the cost of keeping the quiesce for buffer registration operations? It should not be a frequent operation even a heavy handed quiesce should not be a big issue?It waits for __all__ inflight requests to complete and doesn't allow submissions in the meantime (basically all io_uring_enter() attempts will fail). +grace period.
What failure would be expect for submissions?
It's pretty heavy, but worse is that it shuts down everything while waiting. However, if an application is prepared for that and it's really rare or done once, that should be ok.> Jens, what do you think?Just to note, that's how it works now. And IORING_UPDATE_BUFFERS would work same way if added head on. You mentioned that this work is important for you, so I'd rather ask your opinion on that matter. Is it ok for your use case? How often do you expect to do register/unregister/update buffers?
For our use case, a (primary) process shares and incrementally registers buffers in chunks inside a large shmem segment during the app startup. Other (secondary) processes then attach the buffers and initiate IO with the buffers already registered. The registered buffers should pretty much persist during the app lifetime. It seems that a heavy quiesce cost shouldn't be significant compared to the cost of actual registrations etc.
On the other hand, grab/release of the uring_lock with [2] could have a more significant perf impact.
However, if [2] doesn't affect perf, and if it can facilitate the buffer sharing implementation, then I'd say that'd be the preferred approach.
For our case, sharing of buffer registrations is highest priority, followed by the incremental updates.
