From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4077DC11F66 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208246144B for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232469AbhF3Wzu (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:55:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53842 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232397AbhF3Wzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:55:49 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1DEEC061756 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id f14so5225370wrs.6 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:53:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CVFUJSP5IlqHLYlewLwPbePYY8TCZgmuDrZ1ewUfaLs=; b=vQCQZMdhvP3beQJz73aTysTMHaxQ3aU/HIXQwe2H+x246V3UXHyCq9halxNDwlAdzT FUJ3S6f6hTNsA9RJPEskwhlZRCm774GjYX1IdMdfIqIiANxqhsUbQ4ycuymWoTVL0jhy qfkw+MYo+SQ9guCX2x5foUhUdnhLRNC+XZt+DZAValE+1CiLVySWlrYIEsCddKuMRzFO 9q2C1q8mqH20AlRF0wwxBLjtDs1B7GPVhxMm1xwL1xxyUywIblRYsjcBlEY5hvx+RiYT hkaKELrVvRp99mJOk1GVa/15v7uOPOQLnKp3+xou45DFoRlOTUEpv1NpMWRPs4uCbn/A xisw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CVFUJSP5IlqHLYlewLwPbePYY8TCZgmuDrZ1ewUfaLs=; b=BBYwSbC+9345ioFeJ9/32mw9OMIq+aF8SIho4sT9YWajK8+XvxXp+aOS43QuUAc+k5 LhNY2pl4NcrmeD6YJs5ArnFRFXhl4Z8RKtFpMt696dKiP5Dm/dKY+np8SfS4SwrljonB 1qzCHqKCV7av2S+VHScpsXW83fwmRn4lTtUWNVczNmIe1Tl/oQ+8HkrKRiRTvXJuoFaA I/hFVZZLdtlU/B2SvRKOOjTPud7SRbsNgfXnh8y28Zyw8GKX9pjRX/eRaTTjnyApgZ68 4eAB+nmQ8J1qaq2Kdf7ZaPb6LM/+YYkP9XYcimaAjZ7f4FZoQZ/Fyf9qhCvn0pZDoA4J Ck0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tgLqN/4N40u7YXR3vwppDf6t8kfDQlyKKtOSkMsbAsFz4KyBL oj0Tp/kh+a6QActZu5FZuBDpQPXXIsxbHq9Y X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1TSat+im10pvIF/X8ixYdWNmDqR0xzvZa79l62peCq+zC5TdUzzVB/eHcmyrFWKCQQlLxNg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1b0e:: with SMTP id f14mr20739850wrz.335.1625093598075; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.8.197] ([85.255.233.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t17sm21306345wmi.47.2021.06.30.15.53.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: tweak io_req_task_work_add To: Jens Axboe , io-uring@vger.kernel.org References: <24b575ea075ae923992e9ce86b61e8b51629fd29.1625086418.git.asml.silence@gmail.com> <70c425a8-73dd-e15a-5a10-8ea640cdc7cd@kernel.dk> <81f57250-d41d-423c-1c1c-ef275ddb5da4@kernel.dk> From: Pavel Begunkov Message-ID: <1927a5f6-d467-2b50-ef4f-ad1542c83fdb@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 23:53:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81f57250-d41d-423c-1c1c-ef275ddb5da4@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 6/30/21 11:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/30/21 4:10 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 6/30/21 10:56 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 6/30/21 3:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 6/30/21 3:38 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/21 10:22 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/21 3:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/21 10:17 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/21 2:54 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> Whenever possible we don't want to fallback a request. task_work_add() >>>>>>>>> will be fine if the task is exiting, so don't check for PF_EXITING, >>>>>>>>> there is anyway only a relatively small gap between setting the flag >>>>>>>>> and doing the final task_work_run(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also add likely for the hot path. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not a huge fan of likely/unlikely, and in particular constructs like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - if (test_bit(0, &tctx->task_state) || >>>>>>>>> + if (likely(test_bit(0, &tctx->task_state)) || >>>>>>>>> test_and_set_bit(0, &tctx->task_state)) >>>>>>>>> return 0; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> where the state is combined. In any case, it should be a separate >>>>>>>> change. If there's an "Also" paragraph in a patch, then that's also >>>>>>>> usually a good clue that that particular change should've been >>>>>>>> separate :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure what's wrong with likely above, but how about drop >>>>>>> this one then? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep I did - we can do the exiting change separately, the commit message >>>>> >>>>> I think 1-2 is good enough for 5.14, I'll just send it for-next >>>>> >>>>>> just needs to be clarified a bit on why it's ok to do now. And that >>>>> >>>>> It should have been ok to do before those 2 patches, but >>>>> haven't tracked where it lost actuality. >>>> >>>> Right, I was thinking it was related to the swapping of the signal >>>> exit and task work run ordering. But didn't look that far yet... >>> >>> BTW, in usual testing, even just the one hunk removing the exit check >>> seems to result in quite a lot of memory leaks running >>> test/poll-mshot-update. So something is funky with the patch. >> >> I guess you're positive that patches 1-2 have nothing to do >> with that. Right? > > I double checked, and seems fine with those two alone. Ran the test > twice, saw massive amounts of leaks with patches 1-3, and none with > patches 1-2 only. I think there is a problem with the failing path of io_req_task_work_add(), the removing back part. Will send a patch tomorrow, but not able to test. -- Pavel Begunkov