From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 1/5] io_uring: always let io_iopoll_complete() complete polled io.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:38:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 09/12/2020 20:17, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 21:10, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/8/20 12:24 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2020 19:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/20 12:12 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 07/12/2020 16:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:26 PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason is that once we got a non EAGAIN error in io_wq_submit_work(),
>>>>>>> we'll complete req by calling io_req_complete(), which will hold completion_lock
>>>>>>> to call io_commit_cqring(), but for polled io, io_iopoll_complete() won't
>>>>>>> hold completion_lock to call io_commit_cqring(), then there maybe concurrent
>>>>>>> access to ctx->defer_list, double free may happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To fix this bug, we always let io_iopoll_complete() complete polled io.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is causing hangs with iopoll testing, if you end up getting
>>>>>> -EAGAIN on request submission. I've dropped it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fail to understand without debugging how does it happen, especially since
>>>>> it shouldn't even get out of the while in io_wq_submit_work(). Is that
>>>>> something obvious I've missed?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have time to look into it, and haven't yet, just reporting thation.
>>>> it very reliably fails (and under what conditions).
>>>
>>> Yeah, I get it, asked just in case.
>>> I'll see what's going on if Xiaoguang wouldn't handle it before.
>>
>> Should be trivial to reproduce on eg nvme by doing:
>>
>> echo mq-deadline > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/scheduler
>> echo 2 > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/nr_requests
>>
>> and then run test/iopoll on that device. I'll try and take a look
>> tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.
>
> Tried out with iopoll-enabled null_blk. test/iopoll fails with
> "test_io_uring_submit_enters failed", but if remove iteration limit
> from the test, it completes... eventually.
>
> premise: io_complete_rw_iopoll() gets -EAGAIN but returns 0 to
> io_wq_submit_work().
> The old version happily completes IO with that 0, but the patch delays
> it to do_iopoll(), which retries and so all that repeats. And, I believe,
> that the behaviour that io_wq_submit_work()'s -EGAIN check was trying to
> achieve...
>
> The question left is why no one progresses. May even be something in block.
> Need to trace further.
test_io_uring_submit_enters()'s io_uring_submit never goes into the kernel,
IMHO it's saner to not expect to get any CQE, that's also implied in a comment
above the function. I guess before we were getting blk-mq/etc. them back
because of timers in blk-mq/etc.
So I guess it should have been be more like the diff below, which still
doesn't match the comment though.
diff --git a/test/iopoll.c b/test/iopoll.c
index d70ae56..d6f2f3e 100644
--- a/test/iopoll.c
+++ b/test/iopoll.c
@@ -269,13 +269,13 @@ static int test_io_uring_submit_enters(const char *file)
/* submit manually to avoid adding IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS */
ret = __sys_io_uring_enter(ring.ring_fd, __io_uring_flush_sq(&ring), 0,
0, NULL);
- if (ret < 0)
+ if (ret != BUFFERS)
goto err;
for (i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
- ret = io_uring_submit(&ring);
- if (ret != 0) {
- fprintf(stderr, "still had %d sqes to submit, this is unexpected", ret);
+ ret = io_uring_wait_cqe(&ring, &cqe);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "wait cqe failed %i\n", ret);
goto err;
}
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-10 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-06 22:22 [PATCH 5.10 0/5] iopoll fixes Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-06 22:22 ` [PATCH 5.10 1/5] io_uring: always let io_iopoll_complete() complete polled io Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-07 16:28 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-08 19:12 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-08 19:17 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-08 19:24 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-08 21:10 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-09 20:17 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-10 17:38 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-12-06 22:22 ` [PATCH 5.10 2/5] io_uring: fix racy IOPOLL completions Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-07 18:31 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-06 22:22 ` [PATCH 5.10 3/5] io_uring: fix racy IOPOLL flush overflow Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-06 22:22 ` [PATCH 5.10 4/5] io_uring: fix io_cqring_events()'s noflush Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-06 22:22 ` [PATCH 5.10 5/5] io_uring: fix mis-seting personality's creds Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-07 15:05 ` [PATCH 5.10 0/5] iopoll fixes Jens Axboe
2020-12-07 15:24 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-07 15:28 ` 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] \
/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