From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: limit inflight IO
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:15:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 11/9/19 7:23 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/9/19 4:16 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> I've been struggling a bit with how to make this reliable, and I'm not
>>> so sure there's a way to do that. Let's say an application sets up a
>>> ring with 8 sq entries, which would then default to 16 cq entries. With
>>> this patch, we'd allow 16 ios inflight. But what if the application does
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
>>> sqe = get_sqe();
>>> prep_sqe();
>>> submit_sqe();
>>> }
>>>
>>> And then directly proceeds to:
>>>
>>> do {
>>> get_completions();
>>> } while (has_completions);
>>>
>>> As long as fewer than 16 requests complete before we start reaping,
>>> we don't lose any events. Hence there's a risk of breaking existing
>>> setups with this, even though I don't think that's a high risk.
>>>
>>
>> I think, this should be considered as an erroneous usage of the API.
>> It's better to fail ASAP than to be surprised in a production
>> system, because of non-deterministic nature of such code. Even worse
>> with trying to debug such stuff.
>>
>> As for me, cases like below are too far-fetched
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> submit_read_sqe()
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> device_allow_next_read()
>> get_single_cqe()
>> }
>
> I can't really disagree with that, it's a use case that's bound to fail
> every now and then...
>
> But if we agree that's the case, then we should be able to just limit
> based on the cq ring size in question.
>
> Do we make it different fro CQ_NODROP and !CQ_NODROP or not? Because the
> above case would work with CQ_NODROP, reliably. At least CQ_NODROP is
> new so we get to set the rules for that one, they just have to make
> sense.
Just tossing this one out there, it's an incremental to v2 of the patch.
- Check upfront if we're going over the limit, use the same kind of
cost amortization logic except something that's appropriate for
once-per-batch.
- Fold in with the backpressure -EBUSY logic
This avoids breaking up chains, for example, and also means we don't
have to run these checks for every request.
Limit is > 2 * cq_entries. I think that's liberal enough to not cause
issues, while still having a relation to the sq/cq ring sizes which
I like.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 18711d45b994..53ccd4e1dee2 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -737,25 +737,6 @@ static struct io_kiocb *io_get_fallback_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
return NULL;
}
-static bool io_req_over_limit(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
-{
- unsigned inflight;
-
- /*
- * This doesn't need to be super precise, so only check every once
- * in a while.
- */
- if (ctx->cached_sq_head & ctx->sq_mask)
- return false;
-
- /*
- * Use 2x the max CQ ring size
- */
- inflight = ctx->cached_sq_head -
- (ctx->cached_cq_tail + atomic_read(&ctx->cached_cq_overflow));
- return inflight >= 2 * IORING_MAX_CQ_ENTRIES;
-}
-
static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
struct io_submit_state *state)
{
@@ -766,8 +747,6 @@ static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
return ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
if (!state) {
- if (unlikely(io_req_over_limit(ctx)))
- goto out_limit;
req = kmem_cache_alloc(req_cachep, gfp);
if (unlikely(!req))
goto fallback;
@@ -775,8 +754,6 @@ static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
size_t sz;
int ret;
- if (unlikely(io_req_over_limit(ctx)))
- goto out_limit;
sz = min_t(size_t, state->ios_left, ARRAY_SIZE(state->reqs));
ret = kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(req_cachep, gfp, sz, state->reqs);
@@ -812,7 +789,6 @@ static struct io_kiocb *io_get_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
req = io_get_fallback_req(ctx);
if (req)
goto got_it;
-out_limit:
percpu_ref_put(&ctx->refs);
return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
}
@@ -3021,6 +2997,30 @@ static bool io_get_sqring(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct sqe_submit *s)
return false;
}
+static bool io_sq_over_limit(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned to_submit)
+{
+ unsigned inflight;
+
+ if ((ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_CQ_NODROP) &&
+ !list_empty(&ctx->cq_overflow_list))
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * This doesn't need to be super precise, so only check every once
+ * in a while.
+ */
+ if ((ctx->cached_sq_head & ctx->sq_mask) !=
+ ((ctx->cached_sq_head + to_submit) & ctx->sq_mask))
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Limit us to 2x the CQ ring size
+ */
+ inflight = ctx->cached_sq_head -
+ (ctx->cached_cq_tail + atomic_read(&ctx->cached_cq_overflow));
+ return inflight > 2 * ctx->cq_entries;
+}
+
static int io_submit_sqes(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned int nr,
struct file *ring_file, int ring_fd,
struct mm_struct **mm, bool async)
@@ -3031,8 +3031,7 @@ static int io_submit_sqes(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned int nr,
int i, submitted = 0;
bool mm_fault = false;
- if ((ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_CQ_NODROP) &&
- !list_empty(&ctx->cq_overflow_list))
+ if (unlikely(io_sq_over_limit(ctx, nr)))
return -EBUSY;
if (nr > IO_PLUG_THRESHOLD) {
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-09 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-07 23:21 [PATCH RFC] io_uring: limit inflight IO Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 0:19 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 9:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-08 14:05 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-08 17:45 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-09 11:16 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-09 14:23 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-09 15:15 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-11-09 19:24 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-09 10:33 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-11-09 14:12 ` 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] \
/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