From: Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] io_uring: flush timeouts that should already have expired
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:28:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:57:21AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 08/01/2021 15:57, Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:26:26PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> On 02/01/2021 19:54, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>> On 19/12/2020 19:15, Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>> Right now io_flush_timeouts() checks if the current number of events
> >>>> is equal to ->timeout.target_seq, but this will miss some timeouts if
> >>>> there have been more than 1 event added since the last time they were
> >>>> flushed (possible in io_submit_flush_completions(), for example). Fix
> >>>> it by recording the starting value of ->cached_cq_overflow -
> >>>> ->cq_timeouts instead of the target value, so that we can safely
> >>>> (without overflow problems) compare the number of events that have
> >>>> happened with the number of events needed to trigger the timeout.
> >>
> >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3475160.html
> >>
> >> The idea was to replace u32 cached_cq_tail with u64 while keeping
> >> timeout offsets u32. Assuming that we won't ever hit ~2^62 inflight
> >> requests, complete all requests falling into some large enough window
> >> behind that u64 cached_cq_tail.
> >>
> >> simplifying:
> >>
> >> i64 d = target_off - ctx->u64_cq_tail
> >> if (d <= 0 && d > -2^32)
> >> complete_it()
> >>
> >> Not fond of it, but at least worked at that time. You can try out
> >> this approach if you want, but would be perfect if you would find
> >> something more elegant :)
> >>
> >
> > What do you think about something like this? I think it's not totally
> > correct because it relies on having ->completion_lock in io_timeout() so
> > that ->cq_last_tm_flushed is updated, but in case of IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL,
> > io_iopoll_complete() doesn't take that lock, and ->uring_lock will not
> > be held if io_timeout() is called from io_wq_submit_work(), but maybe
> > could still be worth it since that was already possibly a problem?
>
> I'll take a look later, but IOPOLL doesn't support timeouts, see
> the first if in io_timeout_prep(), so that's not a problem, but would
> better to leave a comment.
>
Ah right! Nevermind about that then.
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> > index cb57e0360fcb..50984709879c 100644
> > --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> > @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ struct io_ring_ctx {
> > unsigned cq_entries;
> > unsigned cq_mask;
> > atomic_t cq_timeouts;
> > + unsigned cq_last_tm_flush;
> > unsigned long cq_check_overflow;
> > struct wait_queue_head cq_wait;
> > struct fasync_struct *cq_fasync;
> > @@ -1633,19 +1634,26 @@ static void __io_queue_deferred(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> >
> > static void io_flush_timeouts(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> > {
> > + u32 seq = ctx->cached_cq_tail - atomic_read(&ctx->cq_timeouts);
> > +
> > while (!list_empty(&ctx->timeout_list)) {
> > + u32 events_needed, events_got;
> > struct io_kiocb *req = list_first_entry(&ctx->timeout_list,
> > struct io_kiocb, timeout.list);
> >
> > if (io_is_timeout_noseq(req))
> > break;
> > - if (req->timeout.target_seq != ctx->cached_cq_tail
> > - - atomic_read(&ctx->cq_timeouts))
> > +
> > + events_needed = req->timeout.target_seq - ctx->cq_last_tm_flush;
> > + events_got = seq - ctx->cq_last_tm_flush;
> > + if (events_got < events_needed)
> > break;
> >
> > list_del_init(&req->timeout.list);
> > io_kill_timeout(req);
> > }
> > +
> > + ctx->cq_last_tm_flush = seq;
> > }
> >
> > static void io_commit_cqring(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> >
>
> --
> Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-11 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-19 19:15 [PATCH v2 0/2] io_uring: fix skipping of old timeout events Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2020-12-19 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] io_uring: only increment ->cq_timeouts along with ->cached_cq_tail Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2021-01-02 20:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-04 16:49 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2020-12-19 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] io_uring: flush timeouts that should already have expired Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2021-01-02 19:54 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-02 20:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-08 15:57 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2021-01-11 4:57 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-11 15:28 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez [this message]
2021-01-12 20:47 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-13 14:41 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2021-01-13 15:20 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-14 0:46 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
2021-01-14 21:04 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-04 17:56 ` Marcelo Diop-Gonzalez
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] \
/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