From: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
To: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
John Garry <[email protected]>,
Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>,
Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:57:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200522015719.GB755458@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:39:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Ming,
>
> Ming Lei <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:13:59AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Ming Lei <[email protected]> writes:
> >> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:14:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > - otherwise, the kthread just retries and retries to allocate & release,
> >> > and sooner or later, its time slice is consumed, and migrated out, and the
> >> > cpu hotplug handler will get chance to run and move on, then the cpu is
> >> > shutdown.
> >>
> >> 1) This is based on the assumption that the kthread is in the SCHED_OTHER
> >> scheduling class. Is that really a valid assumption?
> >
> > Given it is unlikely path, we can add msleep() before retrying when INACTIVE bit
> > is observed by current thread, and this way can avoid spinning and should work
> > for other schedulers.
>
> That should work, but pretty is something else
>
> >>
> >> 2) What happens in the following scenario:
> >>
> >> unplug
> >>
> >> mq_offline
> >> set_ctx_inactive()
> >> drain_io()
> >>
> >> io_kthread()
> >> try_queue()
> >> wait_on_ctx()
> >>
> >> Can this happen and if so what will wake up that thread?
> >
> > drain_io() releases all tag of this hctx, then wait_on_ctx() will be waken up
> > after any tag is released.
>
> drain_io() is already done ...
>
> So looking at that thread function:
>
> static int io_sq_thread(void *data)
> {
> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = data;
>
> while (...) {
> ....
> to_submit = io_sqring_entries(ctx);
>
> --> preemption
>
> hotplug runs
> mq_offline()
> set_ctx_inactive();
> drain_io();
> finished();
>
> --> thread runs again
>
> mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
> ret = io_submit_sqes(ctx, to_submit, NULL, -1, true);
> mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
>
> ....
>
> if (!to_submit || ret == -EBUSY)
> ...
> wait_on_ctx();
>
> Can this happen or did drain_io() already take care of the 'to_submit'
> items and the call to io_submit_sqes() turns into a zero action ?
>
> If the above happens then nothing will wake it up because the context
> draining is done and finished.
As Jens replied, you mixed the ctx from io uring and blk-mq, both are in
two worlds.
Any wait in this percpu kthread should just wait for generic resource,
not directly related with blk-mq's inactive hctx. Once this thread is
migrated to other online cpu, it will move on.
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-22 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200518093155.GB35380@T590>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <20200518115454.GA46364@T590>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <20200518141107.GA50374@T590>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <20200519015420.GA70957@T590>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <20200520011823.GA415158@T590>
[not found] ` <20200520030424.GI416136@T590>
2020-05-20 8:03 ` io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 14:45 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 15:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 19:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-20 20:18 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 22:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-20 22:40 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-21 2:27 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-21 8:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-21 9:23 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-21 18:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-21 18:45 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-21 20:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-22 1:57 ` Ming Lei [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 \
--in-reply-to=20200522015719.GB755458@T590 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[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