From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: fix leaks on IOPOLL and CQE_SKIP
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 09:34:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 4/15/22 23:41, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 4/15/22 23:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/15/22 3:05 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 4/12/22 17:46, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/22 10:41 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/22 10:24 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>> If all completed requests in io_do_iopoll() were marked with
>>>>>> REQ_F_CQE_SKIP, we'll not only skip CQE posting but also
>>>>>> io_free_batch_list() leaking memory and resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Move @nr_events increment before REQ_F_CQE_SKIP check. We'll potentially
>>>>>> return the value greater than the real one, but iopolling will deal with
>>>>>> it and the userspace will re-iopoll if needed. In anyway, I don't think
>>>>>> there are many use cases for REQ_F_CQE_SKIP + IOPOLL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah good catch - yes probably not much practical concern, as the lack of
>>>>> ordering for file IO means that CQE_SKIP isn't really useful for that
>>>>> scenario.
>>>>
>>>> One potential snag is with the change we're now doing
>>>> io_cqring_ev_posted_iopoll() even if didn't post an event. Again
>>>> probably not a practical concern, but it is theoretically a violation
>>>> if an eventfd is used.
>>> Looks this didn't get applied. Are you concerned about eventfd?
>>
>> Yep, was hoping to get a reply back, so just deferred it for now.
>>
>>> Is there any good reason why the userspace can't tolerate spurious
>>> eventfd events? Because I don't think we should care this case
>>
>> I always forget the details on that, but we've had cases like this in
>> the past where some applications assume that if they got N eventfd
>> events, then are are also N events in the ring. Which granted is a bit
>> odd, but it does also make some sense. Why would you have more eventfd
>> events posted than events?
>
> For the same reason why it can get less eventfd events than there are
> CQEs, as for me it's only a communication channel but not a
s/communication/notification/
> replacement for completion events.
--
Pavel Begunkov
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-16 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-12 16:24 [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: fix leaks on IOPOLL and CQE_SKIP Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-12 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-12 16:46 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 21:05 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-15 22:03 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 22:41 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-15 22:53 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 23:51 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-16 8:36 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-16 8:39 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-16 13:23 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-16 8:34 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox