On 9/19/24 12:31 PM, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> On 19 12:06:20, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/19/24 10:47 AM, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>> index 75f0087183e5..56097627eafc 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>> @@ -2472,7 +2472,7 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>>>> return 1;
>>>> if (unlikely(!llist_empty(&ctx->work_llist)))
>>>> return 1;
>>>> - if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)))
>>>> + if (unlikely(task_work_pending(current)))
>>>> return 1;
>>>> if (unlikely(task_sigpending(current)))
>>>> return -EINTR;
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h
>>>> index 9d70b2cf7b1e..2fbf0ea9c171 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.h
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h
>>>> @@ -308,15 +308,17 @@ static inline int io_run_task_work(void)
>>>> */
>>>> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL))
>>>> clear_notify_signal();
>>>> +
>>>> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME)) {
>>>> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>>> + resume_user_mode_work(NULL);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * PF_IO_WORKER never returns to userspace, so check here if we have
>>>> * notify work that needs processing.
>>>> */
>>>> if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER) {
>>>> - if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME)) {
>>>> - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>>> - resume_user_mode_work(NULL);
>>>> - }
>>>> if (current->io_uring) {
>>>> unsigned int count = 0;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can confirm that also this patch fixes the issue on my end (both with the
>>> reordering of the task_work and without it).
>>
>> Great, thanks for testing! Sent out a v2. No need to test it unless you
>> absolutely want to ;-)
>>
>>> Also found a different way to trigger the issue that does not misuse
>>> IOSQE_IO_LINK. Do three sends with IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS | IOSQE_IO_LINK
>>> followed by a close with IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS on a ring with
>>> IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN.
>>>
>>> I confirmed that that test case also first brakes on
>>> 846072f16eed3b3fb4e59b677f3ed8afb8509b89 and is fixed by either of the
>>> two patches you sent.
>>>
>>> Not sure if that's a preferable test case compared to the weirder ealier one.
>>> You can find it below as a patch to the existing test case in the liburing
>>> repo:
>>
>> I think that's an improvement, just because it doesn't rely on a weird
>> usage of IOSQE_IO_LINK. And it looks good to me - do you want me to
>> commit this directly, or do you want to send a "proper" patch (or github
>> PR) to retain the proper attribution to you?
>>
>
> Sent the PR with one minor change (adjusted the user data for the third
> send).
And pulled, thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
