Re: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL when running task work

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

 



在 2021/8/9 上午1:31, Nadav Amit 写道:


On Aug 8, 2021, at 5:55 AM, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8/8/21 1:13 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>

When using SQPOLL, the submission queue polling thread calls
task_work_run() to run queued work. However, when work is added with
TWA_SIGNAL - as done by io_uring itself - the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL remains

static int io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req)
{
	...
	notify = (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) ? TWA_NONE : TWA_SIGNAL;
	if (!task_work_add(tsk, &tctx->task_work, notify))
	...
}

io_uring doesn't set TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL for SQPOLL. But if you see it, I'm
rather curious who does.

I was saying io-uring, but I meant io-uring in the wider sense:
io_queue_worker_create().

Here is a call trace for when TWA_SIGNAL is used. io_queue_worker_create()
uses TWA_SIGNAL. It is called by io_wqe_dec_running(), and not shown due
to inlining:
Hi Nadav, Pavel,
How about trying to make this kind of call to use TWA_NONE for sqthread,
though I know for this case currently there is no info to get to know if
task is sqthread. I think we shouldn't kick sqthread.

regards,
Hao

[   70.540761] Call Trace:
[   70.541352]  dump_stack+0x7d/0x9c
[   70.541930]  task_work_add.cold+0x9/0x12
[   70.542591]  io_wqe_dec_running+0xd6/0xf0
[   70.543259]  io_wq_worker_sleeping+0x3d/0x60
[   70.544106]  schedule+0xa0/0xc0
[   70.544673]  userfaultfd_read_iter+0x2c3/0x790
[   70.545374]  ? wake_up_q+0xa0/0xa0
[   70.545887]  io_iter_do_read+0x1e/0x40
[   70.546531]  io_read+0xdc/0x340
[   70.547148]  ? update_curr+0x72/0x1c0
[   70.547887]  ? update_load_avg+0x7c/0x600
[   70.548538]  ? __switch_to_xtra+0x10a/0x500
[   70.549264]  io_issue_sqe+0xd99/0x1840
[   70.549887]  ? lock_timer_base+0x72/0xa0
[   70.550516]  ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x54/0x80
[   70.551224]  io_wq_submit_work+0x87/0xb0
[   70.552001]  io_worker_handle_work+0x2b5/0x4b0
[   70.552705]  io_wqe_worker+0xd6/0x2f0
[   70.553364]  ? recalc_sigpending+0x1c/0x50
[   70.554074]  ? io_worker_handle_work+0x4b0/0x4b0
[   70.554813]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30

Does it answer your question?





[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