From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Xiaobing Li <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] io_uring/fdinfo: remove need for sqpoll lock for thread/pid retrieval
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 06:42:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 11/14/23 11:10 PM, Xiaobing Li wrote:
> On 11/15/23 2:36 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> if (has_lock && (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL)) {
>> struct io_sq_data *sq = ctx->sq_data;
>>
>> - if (mutex_trylock(&sq->lock)) {
>> - if (sq->thread) {
>> - sq_pid = task_pid_nr(sq->thread);
>> - sq_cpu = task_cpu(sq->thread);
>> - }
>> - mutex_unlock(&sq->lock);
>> - }
>> + sq_pid = sq->task_pid;
>> + sq_cpu = sq->sq_cpu;
>> }
>
> There are two problems:
> 1.The output of SqThread is inaccurate. What is actually recorded is
> the PID of the parent process.
Doh yes, we need to reset this at the start of the thread, post
assigning task_comm. I'll send out a v4 today.
> 2. Sometimes it can output, sometimes it outputs -1.
>
> The test results are as follows:
> Every 0.5s: cat /proc/9572/fdinfo/6 | grep Sq
> SqMask: 0x3
> SqHead: 6765744
> SqTail: 6765744
> CachedSqHead: 6765744
> SqThread: -1
> SqThreadCpu: -1
> SqBusy: 0%
> -------------------------------------------
> Every 0.5s: cat /proc/9572/fdinfo/6 | grep Sq
> SqMask: 0x3
> SqHead: 7348727
> SqTail: 7348728
> CachedSqHead: 7348728
> SqThread: 9571
> SqThreadCpu: 174
> SqBusy: 95%
Right, this is due to the uring_lock. We got rid of the main regression,
which was the new trylock for the sqd->lock, but the old one remains. We
can fix this as well for sqpoll info, but it's not a regression from
past releases, it's always been like that.
Pavel and I discussed it yesterday, and the easy solution is to make
io_sq_data be under RCU protection. But that requires this patch first,
so we don't have to fiddle with the sqpoll task itself. I can try and
hack up the patch if you want to test it, it'd be on top of this one and
for the next kernel release rather than 6.7.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-15 2:36 [PATCH v3] io_uring/fdinfo: remove need for sqpoll lock for thread/pid retrieval Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <CGME20231115061813epcas5p2bb6bebb451c6e2c65a5e9ec9ffac5f46@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2023-11-15 6:10 ` Xiaobing Li
2023-11-15 13:42 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2023-11-15 13:49 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <CGME20231118032740epcas5p20b6aad6264323376fa024bc2a56f0990@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2023-11-18 3:19 ` Xiaobing Li
2023-11-19 21:23 ` 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] \
[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