public inbox for io-uring@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fengnan Chang <changfengnan@bytedance.com>
To: axboe@kernel.dk, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Fengnan Chang <changfengnan@bytedance.com>,
	Diangang Li <lidiangang@bytedance.com>
Subject: [PATCH] io_uring/io-wq: add check free worker before create new worker
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:02:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250813120214.18729-1-changfengnan@bytedance.com> (raw)

After commit 0b2b066f8a85 ("io_uring/io-wq: only create a new worker
if it can make progress"), in our produce environment, we still
observe that part of io_worker threads keeps creating and destroying.
After analysis, it was confirmed that this was due to a more complex
scenario involving a large number of fsync operations, which can be
abstracted as frequent write + fsync operations on multiple files in
a single uring instance. Since write is a hash operation while fsync
is not, and fsync is likely to be suspended during execution, the
action of checking the hash value in
io_wqe_dec_running cannot handle such scenarios.
Similarly, if hash-based work and non-hash-based work are sent at the
same time, similar issues are likely to occur.
Returning to the starting point of the issue, when a new work
arrives, io_wq_enqueue may wake up free worker A, while
io_wq_dec_running may create worker B. Ultimately, only one of A and
B can obtain and process the task, leaving the other in an idle
state. In the end, the issue is caused by inconsistent logic in the
checks performed by io_wq_enqueue and io_wq_dec_running.
Therefore, the problem can be resolved by checking for available
workers in io_wq_dec_running.

Signed-off-by: Fengnan Chang <changfengnan@bytedance.com>
Reviewed-by: Diangang Li <lidiangang@bytedance.com>
---
 io_uring/io-wq.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
index be91edf34f01..17dfaa0395c4 100644
--- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
+++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
@@ -357,6 +357,13 @@ static void create_worker_cb(struct callback_head *cb)
 	worker = container_of(cb, struct io_worker, create_work);
 	wq = worker->wq;
 	acct = worker->acct;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	do_create = !io_acct_activate_free_worker(acct);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (!do_create)
+		goto no_need_create;
+
 	raw_spin_lock(&acct->workers_lock);
 
 	if (acct->nr_workers < acct->max_workers) {
@@ -367,6 +374,7 @@ static void create_worker_cb(struct callback_head *cb)
 	if (do_create) {
 		create_io_worker(wq, acct);
 	} else {
+no_need_create:
 		atomic_dec(&acct->nr_running);
 		io_worker_ref_put(wq);
 	}
-- 
2.20.1


             reply	other threads:[~2025-08-13 12:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-13 12:02 Fengnan Chang [this message]
2025-08-13 12:04 ` [PATCH] io_uring/io-wq: add check free worker before create new worker Fengnan Chang
2025-08-13 12:31 ` Jens Axboe
2025-08-13 12:32 ` 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 \
    --in-reply-to=20250813120214.18729-1-changfengnan@bytedance.com \
    --to=changfengnan@bytedance.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lidiangang@bytedance.com \
    /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