From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Joseph Qi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] io_uring: batch completion in prior_task_list
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 21:16:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 12/7/21 21:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 12/7/21 09:39, Hao Xu wrote:
>> In previous patches, we have already gathered some tw with
>> io_req_task_complete() as callback in prior_task_list, let's complete
>> them in batch while we cannot grab uring lock. In this way, we batch
>> the req_complete_post path.
[...]
>> + if (likely(*uring_locked))
>> + req->io_task_work.func(req, uring_locked);
>> + else
>> + __io_req_complete_post(req, req->result, io_put_kbuf(req));
>
> I think there is the same issue as last time, first iteration of tctx_task_work()
> sets ctx but doesn't get uring_lock. Then you go here, find a request with the
> same ctx and end up here with locking.
Maybe something like below on top? Totally untested. We basically always
want *uring_locked != *compl_locked, so we don't even need to to store
both vars.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index f224f8df77a1..dfa226bf2c53 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2233,27 +2233,28 @@ static inline void ctx_commit_and_unlock(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
}
static void handle_prior_tw_list(struct io_wq_work_node *node, struct io_ring_ctx **ctx,
- bool *uring_locked, bool *compl_locked)
+ bool *uring_locked)
{
+ if (*ctx && !*uring_locked)
+ spin_lock(&(*ctx)->completion_lock);
+
do {
struct io_wq_work_node *next = node->next;
struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(node, struct io_kiocb,
io_task_work.node);
if (req->ctx != *ctx) {
- if (unlikely(*compl_locked)) {
+ if (unlikely(!*uring_locked && *ctx))
ctx_commit_and_unlock(*ctx);
- *compl_locked = false;
- }
+
ctx_flush_and_put(*ctx, uring_locked);
*ctx = req->ctx;
/* if not contended, grab and improve batching */
*uring_locked = mutex_trylock(&(*ctx)->uring_lock);
- percpu_ref_get(&(*ctx)->refs);
- if (unlikely(!*uring_locked)) {
+ if (unlikely(!*uring_locked))
spin_lock(&(*ctx)->completion_lock);
- *compl_locked = true;
- }
+
+ percpu_ref_get(&(*ctx)->refs);
}
if (likely(*uring_locked))
req->io_task_work.func(req, uring_locked);
@@ -2262,10 +2263,8 @@ static void handle_prior_tw_list(struct io_wq_work_node *node, struct io_ring_ct
node = next;
} while (node);
- if (unlikely(*compl_locked)) {
+ if (unlikely(!*uring_locked))
ctx_commit_and_unlock(*ctx);
- *compl_locked = false;
- }
}
static void handle_tw_list(struct io_wq_work_node *node, struct io_ring_ctx **ctx, bool *locked)
@@ -2289,7 +2288,7 @@ static void handle_tw_list(struct io_wq_work_node *node, struct io_ring_ctx **ct
static void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb)
{
- bool uring_locked = false, compl_locked = false;
+ bool uring_locked = false;
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = NULL;
struct io_uring_task *tctx = container_of(cb, struct io_uring_task,
task_work);
@@ -2313,7 +2312,7 @@ static void tctx_task_work(struct callback_head *cb)
break;
if (node1)
- handle_prior_tw_list(node1, &ctx, &uring_locked, &compl_locked);
+ handle_prior_tw_list(node1, &ctx, &uring_locked);
if (node2)
handle_tw_list(node2, &ctx, &uring_locked);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-07 21:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-07 9:39 [PATCH v7 0/5] task optimization Hao Xu
2021-12-07 9:39 ` [PATCH 1/5] io-wq: add helper to merge two wq_lists Hao Xu
2021-12-07 9:39 ` [PATCH 2/5] io_uring: add a priority tw list for irq completion work Hao Xu
2021-12-07 9:39 ` [PATCH 3/5] io_uring: add helper for task work execution code Hao Xu
2021-12-07 9:39 ` [PATCH 4/5] io_uring: split io_req_complete_post() and add a helper Hao Xu
2021-12-07 9:39 ` [PATCH 5/5] io_uring: batch completion in prior_task_list Hao Xu
2021-12-07 21:01 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-12-07 21:16 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-12-08 5:04 ` Hao Xu
2021-12-08 5:08 ` Hao Xu
2021-12-07 21:59 ` Jens Axboe
2021-12-08 5:23 ` Hao Xu
2021-12-07 11:18 ` [PATCH v7 0/5] task optimization Hao Xu
2021-12-07 16:48 ` 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] \
/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