From: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@xxxxxxx>
Subject: epoll: atomically remove wait entry on wake up
This patch does two things:
1. fixes lost wakeup introduced by:
339ddb53d373 ("fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of nested epoll")
2. improves performance for events delivery.
The description of the problem is the following: if N (>1) threads are
waiting on ep->wq for new events and M (>1) events come, it is quite
likely that >1 wakeups hit the same wait queue entry, because there is
quite a big window between __add_wait_queue_exclusive() and the following
__remove_wait_queue() calls in ep_poll() function. This can lead to lost
wakeups, because thread, which was woken up, can handle not all the events
in ->rdllist. (in better words the problem is described here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/7/905)
The idea of the current patch is to use init_wait() instead of
init_waitqueue_entry(). Internally init_wait() sets
autoremove_wake_function as a callback, which removes the wait entry
atomically (under the wq locks) from the list, thus the next coming wakeup
hits the next wait entry in the wait queue, thus preventing lost wakeups.
Problem is very well reproduced by the epoll60 test case [1].
Wait entry removal on wakeup has also performance benefits, because there
is no need to take a ep->lock and remove wait entry from the queue after
the successful wakeup. Here is the timing output of the epoll60 test
case:
With explicit wakeup from ep_scan_ready_list() (the state of the
code prior 339ddb53d373):
real 0m6.970s
user 0m49.786s
sys 0m0.113s
After this patch:
real 0m5.220s
user 0m36.879s
sys 0m0.019s
The other testcase is the stress-epoll [2], where one thread consumes
all the events and other threads produce many events:
With explicit wakeup from ep_scan_ready_list() (the state of the
code prior 339ddb53d373):
threads events/ms run-time ms
8 5427 1474
16 6163 2596
32 6824 4689
64 7060 9064
128 6991 18309
After this patch:
threads events/ms run-time ms
8 5598 1429
16 7073 2262
32 7502 4265
64 7640 8376
128 7634 16767
(number of "events/ms" represents event bandwidth, thus higher is
better; number of "run-time ms" represents overall time spent
doing the benchmark, thus lower is better)
[1] tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c
[2] https://github.com/rouming/test-tools/blob/master/stress-epoll.c
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200430130326.1368509-2-rpenyaev@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Heiher <r@xxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/eventpoll.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c~epoll-atomically-remove-wait-entry-on-wake-up
+++ a/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -1822,7 +1822,6 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep,
{
int res = 0, eavail, timed_out = 0;
u64 slack = 0;
- bool waiter = false;
wait_queue_entry_t wait;
ktime_t expires, *to = NULL;
@@ -1867,21 +1866,23 @@ fetch_events:
*/
ep_reset_busy_poll_napi_id(ep);
- /*
- * We don't have any available event to return to the caller. We need
- * to sleep here, and we will be woken by ep_poll_callback() when events
- * become available.
- */
- if (!waiter) {
- waiter = true;
- init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, current);
-
+ do {
+ /*
+ * Internally init_wait() uses autoremove_wake_function(),
+ * thus wait entry is removed from the wait queue on each
+ * wakeup. Why it is important? In case of several waiters
+ * each new wakeup will hit the next waiter, giving it the
+ * chance to harvest new event. Otherwise wakeup can be
+ * lost. This is also good performance-wise, because on
+ * normal wakeup path no need to call __remove_wait_queue()
+ * explicitly, thus ep->lock is not taken, which halts the
+ * event delivery.
+ */
+ init_wait(&wait);
write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
__add_wait_queue_exclusive(&ep->wq, &wait);
write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
- }
- for (;;) {
/*
* We don't want to sleep if the ep_poll_callback() sends us
* a wakeup in between. That's why we set the task state
@@ -1911,10 +1912,20 @@ fetch_events:
timed_out = 1;
break;
}
- }
+
+ /* We were woken up, thus go and try to harvest some events */
+ eavail = 1;
+
+ } while (0);
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ if (!list_empty_careful(&wait.entry)) {
+ write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
+ __remove_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
+ write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
+ }
+
send_events:
/*
* Try to transfer events to user space. In case we get 0 events and
@@ -1925,12 +1936,6 @@ send_events:
!(res = ep_send_events(ep, events, maxevents)) && !timed_out)
goto fetch_events;
- if (waiter) {
- write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
- __remove_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
- write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
- }
-
return res;
}
_
