On 02/02/2022 19:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2/2/22 9:57 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2/2/22 8:59 AM, Usama Arif wrote:
Acquire completion_lock at the start of __io_uring_register before
registering/unregistering eventfd and release it at the end. Hence
all calls to io_cqring_ev_posted which adds to the eventfd counter
will finish before acquiring the spin_lock in io_uring_register, and
all new calls will wait till the eventfd is registered. This avoids
ring quiesce which is much more expensive than acquiring the
spin_lock.
On the system tested with this patch, io_uring_reigster with
IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD takes less than 1ms, compared to 15ms before.
This seems like optimizing for the wrong thing, so I've got a few
questions. Are you doing a lot of eventfd registrations (and
unregister) in your workload? Or is it just the initial pain of
registering one? In talking to Pavel, he suggested that RCU might be a
good use case here, and I think so too. That would still remove the
need to quiesce, and the posted side just needs a fairly cheap rcu
read lock/unlock around it.
Totally untested, but perhaps can serve as a starting point or
inspiration.
Hi,
Thank you for the replies and comments. My usecase registers only one
eventfd at the start.
Thanks a lot for the diff below, it was a really good starting point!
I have sent a couple of patches for review implementing the RCU way.
I think that the below diff might have some issues, so i have done some
parts in a different way. Please have a look in the diff below where i
think there might be issues like race conditions, and how the patches I
sent resolve it.
I see that if we remove ring quiesce from the the above 3 opcodes, then
only IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS and IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS is
left for ring quiesce. I just had a quick look at those, and from what i
see we might not need to enter ring quiesce in
IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS as the ring is already disabled at that point?
And for IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS if we do a similar approach to
IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, i.e. wrap ctx->restrictions inside an RCU
protected data structure, use spin_lock to prevent multiple
io_register_restrictions calls at the same time, and use read_rcu_lock
in io_check_restriction, then we can remove ring quiesce from
io_uring_register altogether?
My usecase only uses IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, but i think entering ring
quiesce costs similar in other opcodes. If the above sounds reasonable,
please let me know and i can send patches for removing ring quiesce for
io_uring_register.
Thanks again!
Usama
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 64c055421809..195752f4823f 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ struct io_submit_state {
struct blk_plug plug;
};
+struct io_ev_fd {
+ struct eventfd_ctx *cq_ev_fd;
+ struct io_ring_ctx *ctx;
+ struct rcu_head rcu;
+};
+
struct io_ring_ctx {
/* const or read-mostly hot data */
struct {
@@ -412,7 +418,7 @@ struct io_ring_ctx {
struct {
unsigned cached_cq_tail;
unsigned cq_entries;
- struct eventfd_ctx *cq_ev_fd;
+ struct io_ev_fd *io_ev_fd;
struct wait_queue_head cq_wait;
unsigned cq_extra;
atomic_t cq_timeouts;
@@ -1741,13 +1747,27 @@ static inline struct io_uring_cqe *io_get_cqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
static inline bool io_should_trigger_evfd(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
{
- if (likely(!ctx->cq_ev_fd))
+ if (likely(!ctx->io_ev_fd))
return false;
if (READ_ONCE(ctx->rings->cq_flags) & IORING_CQ_EVENTFD_DISABLED)
return false;
return !ctx->eventfd_async || io_wq_current_is_worker();
}
+static void io_eventfd_signal(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
+{
+ struct io_ev_fd *ev_fd;
+
+ if (!io_should_trigger_evfd(ctx))
+ return;
+
As the above io_should_trigger_evfd is not part of rcu_read_lock in this
diff, another thread at this point could unregister the eventfd1 that
was checked in io_should_trigger_evfd call above and register another
one (eventfd2). If execution switches back to the thread executing
io_eventfd_signal after this the eventfd_signal below will be sent to
eventfd2, which is not right. I think there might be other wrong
scenarios that can happen over here as well.
What i have done to avoid this from happening is treat ctx->io_ev_fd as
an RCU protected data structure in the entire file. Hence, the entire
io_eventfd_signal is a read-side critical section and a single ev_fd is
rcu_dereferenced and used in io_should_trigger_evfd and eventfd_signal.
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ ev_fd = READ_ONCE(ctx->io_ev_fd);
+ if (ev_fd)
+ eventfd_signal(ev_fd->cq_ev_fd, 1);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+}
+
/*
* This should only get called when at least one event has been posted.
* Some applications rely on the eventfd notification count only changing
@@ -1764,8 +1784,7 @@ static void io_cqring_ev_posted(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
*/
if (wq_has_sleeper(&ctx->cq_wait))
wake_up_all(&ctx->cq_wait);
- if (io_should_trigger_evfd(ctx))
- eventfd_signal(ctx->cq_ev_fd, 1);
+ io_eventfd_signal(ctx);
}
static void io_cqring_ev_posted_iopoll(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
@@ -1777,8 +1796,7 @@ static void io_cqring_ev_posted_iopoll(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->cq_wait))
wake_up_all(&ctx->cq_wait);
}
- if (io_should_trigger_evfd(ctx))
- eventfd_signal(ctx->cq_ev_fd, 1);
+ io_eventfd_signal(ctx);
}
/* Returns true if there are no backlogged entries after the flush */
@@ -9569,31 +9587,49 @@ static int __io_sqe_buffers_update(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
static int io_eventfd_register(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, void __user *arg)
{
+ struct io_ev_fd *ev_fd;
__s32 __user *fds = arg;
int fd;
- if (ctx->cq_ev_fd)
+ if (ctx->io_ev_fd)
return -EBUSY;
You could have 2 threads call io_uring_register on the same ring at the
same time, they could both pass the above check of ctx->io_ev_fd != NULL
not existing and enter a race condition to assign ctx->io_ev_fd, i guess
thats why locks are used for writes when using RCU, i have used
ctx->ev_fd_lock in the patch i pushed for review. Also as ctx->io_ev_fd
is RCU protected so accesses are only using
rcu_dereference_protected/rcu_dereference/rcu_assign_poitner.
if (copy_from_user(&fd, fds, sizeof(*fds)))
return -EFAULT;
- ctx->cq_ev_fd = eventfd_ctx_fdget(fd);
- if (IS_ERR(ctx->cq_ev_fd)) {
- int ret = PTR_ERR(ctx->cq_ev_fd);
+ ev_fd = kmalloc(sizeof(*ev_fd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ev_fd)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ ev_fd->cq_ev_fd = eventfd_ctx_fdget(fd);
+ if (IS_ERR(ev_fd->cq_ev_fd)) {
+ int ret = PTR_ERR(ev_fd->cq_ev_fd);
- ctx->cq_ev_fd = NULL;
+ kfree(ev_fd);
return ret;
}
+ ev_fd->ctx = ctx;
+ WRITE_ONCE(ctx->io_ev_fd, ev_fd);
return 0;
}
+static void io_eventfd_put(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+ struct io_ev_fd *ev_fd = container_of(rcu, struct io_ev_fd, rcu);
+ struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = ev_fd->ctx;
+
+ eventfd_ctx_put(ev_fd->cq_ev_fd);
+ kfree(ev_fd);
+ WRITE_ONCE(ctx->io_ev_fd, NULL);
+}
+
static int io_eventfd_unregister(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
{
- if (ctx->cq_ev_fd) {
- eventfd_ctx_put(ctx->cq_ev_fd);
- ctx->cq_ev_fd = NULL;
+ struct io_ev_fd *ev_fd = ctx->io_ev_fd;
+
+ if (ev_fd) {
+ call_rcu(&ev_fd->rcu, io_eventfd_put);
return 0;
}
@@ -9659,7 +9695,10 @@ static __cold void io_ring_ctx_free(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
if (ctx->rings)
__io_cqring_overflow_flush(ctx, true);
mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
- io_eventfd_unregister(ctx);
+ if (ctx->io_ev_fd) {
+ eventfd_ctx_put(ctx->io_ev_fd->cq_ev_fd);
+ kfree(ctx->io_ev_fd);
+ }
io_destroy_buffers(ctx);
if (ctx->sq_creds)
put_cred(ctx->sq_creds);
@@ -11209,6 +11248,8 @@ static bool io_register_op_must_quiesce(int op)
case IORING_UNREGISTER_IOWQ_AFF:
case IORING_REGISTER_IOWQ_MAX_WORKERS:
case IORING_REGISTER_MAP_BUFFERS:
+ case IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD:
+ case IORING_UNREGISTER_EVENTFD:
return false;
default:
return true;
@@ -11423,7 +11464,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(io_uring_register, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, opcode,
ret = __io_uring_register(ctx, opcode, arg, nr_args);
mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
trace_io_uring_register(ctx, opcode, ctx->nr_user_files, ctx->nr_user_bufs,
- ctx->cq_ev_fd != NULL, ret);
+ ctx->io_ev_fd != NULL, ret);
out_fput:
fdput(f);
return ret;
