From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] io_uring: re-issue block requests that failed because of resources
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:30:16 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 19/06/2020 17:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:12 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 18/06/2020 17:43, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Mark the plug with nowait == true, which will cause requests to avoid
>>> blocking on request allocation. If they do, we catch them and reissue
>>> them from a task_work based handler.
>>>
>>> Normally we can catch -EAGAIN directly, but the hard case is for split
>>> requests. As an example, the application issues a 512KB request. The
>>> block core will split this into 128KB if that's the max size for the
>>> device. The first request issues just fine, but we run into -EAGAIN for
>>> some latter splits for the same request. As the bio is split, we don't
>>> get to see the -EAGAIN until one of the actual reads complete, and hence
>>> we cannot handle it inline as part of submission.
>>>
>>> This does potentially cause re-reads of parts of the range, as the whole
>>> request is reissued. There's currently no better way to handle this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> fs/io_uring.c | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> index 2e257c5a1866..40413fb9d07b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> @@ -900,6 +900,13 @@ static int io_file_get(struct io_submit_state *state, struct io_kiocb *req,
>>> static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req,
>>> const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe);
>>>
>> ...> +
>>> +static void io_rw_resubmit(struct callback_head *cb)
>>> +{
>>> + struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(cb, struct io_kiocb, task_work);
>>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>> +
>>> + err = io_sq_thread_acquire_mm(ctx, req);
>>> +
>>> + if (io_resubmit_prep(req, err)) {
>>> + refcount_inc(&req->refs);
>>> + io_queue_async_work(req);
>>> + }
>>
>> Hmm, I have similar stuff but for iopoll. On top removing grab_env* for
>> linked reqs and some extra. I think I'll rebase on top of this.
>
> Yes, there's certainly overlap there. I consider this series basically
> wrapped up, so feel free to just base on top of it.
>
>>> +static bool io_rw_reissue(struct io_kiocb *req, long res)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
>>> + struct task_struct *tsk;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + if ((res != -EAGAIN && res != -EOPNOTSUPP) || io_wq_current_is_worker())
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + tsk = req->task;
>>> + init_task_work(&req->task_work, io_rw_resubmit);
>>> + ret = task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, true);
>>
>> I don't like that the request becomes un-discoverable for cancellation
>> awhile sitting in the task_work list. Poll stuff at least have hash_node
>> for that.
>
> Async buffered IO was never cancelable, so it doesn't really matter.
> It's tied to the task, so we know it'll get executed - either run, or
> canceled if the task is going away. This is really not that different
> from having the work discoverable through io-wq queueing before, since
> the latter could never be canceled anyway as it sits there
> uninterruptibly waiting for IO completion.
Makes sense. I was thinking about using this task-requeue for all kinds
of requests. Though, instead of speculating it'd be better for me to embody
ideas into patches and see.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-19 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-18 14:43 Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 01/15] block: provide plug based way of signaling forced no-wait semantics Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 02/15] io_uring: always plug for any number of IOs Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: catch -EIO from buffered issue request failure Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 04/15] io_uring: re-issue block requests that failed because of resources Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 14:12 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-19 14:22 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 14:30 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-06-19 14:36 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 05/15] mm: allow read-ahead with IOCB_NOWAIT set Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 1:02 ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-24 1:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-24 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 15:35 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 16:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-24 16:44 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 11:38 ` Andreas Grünbacher
2020-07-07 14:31 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-10 22:56 ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-10 23:03 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 4:38 ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-24 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 06/15] mm: abstract out wake_page_match() from wake_page_function() Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 07/15] mm: add support for async page locking Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 11:32 ` Andreas Grünbacher
2020-07-07 14:32 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 08/15] mm: support async buffered reads in generic_file_buffered_read() Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 09/15] fs: add FMODE_BUF_RASYNC Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 10/15] block: flag block devices as supporting IOCB_WAITQ Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 11/15] xfs: flag files as supporting buffered async reads Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 12/15] btrfs: " Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 11:11 ` David Sterba
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 13/15] ext4: flag " Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 14/15] mm: add kiocb_wait_page_queue_init() helper Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 15/15] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it Jens Axboe
2020-06-23 12:39 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-23 14:38 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:45 ` [PATCHSET v7 0/12] Add support for async buffered reads Jens Axboe
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] \
[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