Re: [PATCH for-5.13] io_uring: maintain drain requests' logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



在 2021/4/2 上午6:29, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
On 01/04/2021 15:55, Hao Xu wrote:
在 2021/4/1 下午6:25, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
On 01/04/2021 07:53, Hao Xu wrote:
在 2021/4/1 上午6:06, Pavel Begunkov 写道:


On 31/03/2021 10:01, Hao Xu wrote:
Now that we have multishot poll requests, one sqe can emit multiple
cqes. given below example:
       sqe0(multishot poll)-->sqe1-->sqe2(drain req)
sqe2 is designed to issue after sqe0 and sqe1 completed, but since sqe0
is a multishot poll request, sqe2 may be issued after sqe0's event
triggered twice before sqe1 completed. This isn't what users leverage
drain requests for.
Here a simple solution is to ignore all multishot poll cqes, which means
drain requests  won't wait those request to be done.

Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
    fs/io_uring.c | 9 +++++++--
    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 513096759445..cd6d44cf5940 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ struct io_ring_ctx {
        struct callback_head        *exit_task_work;
          struct wait_queue_head        hash_wait;
+    unsigned                        multishot_cqes;
          /* Keep this last, we don't need it for the fast path */
        struct work_struct        exit_work;
@@ -1181,8 +1182,8 @@ static bool req_need_defer(struct io_kiocb *req, u32 seq)
        if (unlikely(req->flags & REQ_F_IO_DRAIN)) {
            struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
    -        return seq != ctx->cached_cq_tail
-                + READ_ONCE(ctx->cached_cq_overflow);
+        return seq + ctx->multishot_cqes != ctx->cached_cq_tail
+            + READ_ONCE(ctx->cached_cq_overflow);
        }
          return false;
@@ -4897,6 +4898,7 @@ static bool io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask, int error)
    {
        struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
        unsigned flags = IORING_CQE_F_MORE;
+    bool multishot_poll = !(req->poll.events & EPOLLONESHOT);
          if (!error && req->poll.canceled) {
            error = -ECANCELED;
@@ -4911,6 +4913,9 @@ static bool io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask, int error)
            req->poll.done = true;
            flags = 0;
        }
+    if (multishot_poll)
+        ctx->multishot_cqes++;
+

We need to make sure we do that only for a non-final complete, i.e.
not killing request, otherwise it'll double account the last one.
Hi Pavel, I saw a killing request like iopoll_remove or async_cancel call io_cqring_fill_event() to create an ECANCELED cqe for the original poll request. So there could be cases like(even for single poll request):
    (1). add poll --> cancel poll, an ECANCELED cqe.
                                                    1sqe:1cqe   all good
    (2). add poll --> trigger event(queued to task_work) --> cancel poll,            an ECANCELED cqe --> task_work runs, another ECANCELED cqe.
                                                    1sqe:2cqes

Those should emit a CQE on behalf of the request they're cancelling
only when it's definitely cancelled and not going to fill it
itself. E.g. if io_poll_cancel() found it and removed from
all the list and core's poll infra.

At least before multi-cqe it should have been working fine.

I haven't done a test for this, but from the code logic, there could be
case below:

io_poll_add()                         | io_poll_remove
(event happen)io_poll_wake()          | io_poll_remove_one
                                       | io_poll_remove_waitqs
                                       | io_cqring_fill_event(-ECANCELED)
                                       |
task_work run(io_poll_task_func)      |
io_poll_complete()                    |
req->poll.canceled is true, \         |
__io_cqring_fill_event(-ECANCELED)    |

two ECANCELED cqes, is there anything I missed?

Definitely may be be, but need to take a closer look

I'll do some test to test if this issue exists, and make some change if it does.

I suggest we shall only emit one ECANCELED cqe.
Currently I only account cqe through io_poll_complete(), so ECANCELED cqe from io_poll_remove or async_cancel etc are not counted in.
E.g. is failed __io_cqring_fill_event() in io_poll_complete() fine?
Other places?
a failed __io_cqring_fill_event() doesn't produce a cqe but increment ctx->cached_cq_overflow, as long as a cqe is produced or cached_cq_overflow is +=1, it is ok.

Not claiming that the case is broken, but cached_cq_overflow is
considered in req_need_defer() as well, so from its perspective there
is no much difference between succeed fill_event() or not.


Btw, we can use some tests :)
I'll do more tests.

Perfect!



        io_commit_cqring(ctx);
        return !(flags & IORING_CQE_F_MORE);
    }





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux