From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix CQ waiting timeout handling
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:39:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7bffddd71b08f28a877d44d37ac953ddb01590d.1672915663.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
hello,
> Jiffy to ktime CQ waiting conversion broke how we treat timeouts, in
> particular we rearm it anew every time we get into
> io_cqring_wait_schedule() without adjusting the timeout. Waiting for 2
> CQEs and getting a task_work in the middle may double the timeout value,
> or even worse in some cases task may wait indefinitely.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Fixes: 228339662b398 ("io_uring: don't convert to jiffies for waiting on timeouts")
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> v2: rebase
>
> io_uring/io_uring.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> index 472574192dd6..2ac1cd8d23ea 100644
> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> @@ -2470,7 +2470,7 @@ int io_run_task_work_sig(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> /* when returns >0, the caller should retry */
> static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> struct io_wait_queue *iowq,
> - ktime_t timeout)
> + ktime_t *timeout)
> {
> int ret;
> unsigned long check_cq;
> @@ -2488,7 +2488,7 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> if (check_cq & BIT(IO_CHECK_CQ_DROPPED_BIT))
> return -EBADR;
> }
> - if (!schedule_hrtimeout(&timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
> + if (!schedule_hrtimeout(timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
> return -ETIME;
>
> /*
> @@ -2564,7 +2564,7 @@ static int io_cqring_wait(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, int min_events,
> }
> prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&ctx->cq_wait, &iowq.wq,
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> - ret = io_cqring_wait_schedule(ctx, &iowq, timeout);
> + ret = io_cqring_wait_schedule(ctx, &iowq, &timeout);
> if (__io_cqring_events_user(ctx) >= min_events)
> break;
> cond_resched();
Does this bug result in any real issues?
io_cqring_wait_schedule() calls schedule_hrtimeout(), but seems that
schedule_hrtimeout() and its child functions don't modify timeout or expires
at all, so I wonder how this patch works. Thanks.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-11 6:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-05 10:49 [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix CQ waiting timeout handling Pavel Begunkov
2023-01-11 6:39 ` Xiaoguang Wang [this message]
2023-01-11 14:44 ` Pavel Begunkov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-01-05 15:05 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=3ed001f3-a33c-cc69-be47-d5318de5ddcd@linux.alibaba.com \
[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