io_uring_prep_timeout() leading to an IO pressure close to 100

io_uring_prep_timeout() leading to an IO pressure close to 100

[Fiona Ebner]

Dear maintainers,

I'm currently investigating an issue with QEMU causing an IO pressure
value of nearly 100 when io_uring is used for the event loop of a QEMU
iothread (which is the case since QEMU 10.2 if io_uring is enabled
during configuration and available).

The cause seems to be the io_uring_prep_timeout() call that is used for
blocking wait. I attached a minimal reproducer below, which exposes the
issue [0].

This was observed on a kernel based on 7.0-rc6 as well as 6.17.13. I
haven't investigated what happens inside the kernel yet, so I don't know
if it is an accounting issue or within io_uring.

Let me know if you need more information or if I should test something
specific.

Best Regards,
Fiona

[0]:

#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <liburing.h>

int main(void) {
    int ret;
    struct io_uring ring;
    struct __kernel_timespec ts;
    struct io_uring_sqe *sqe;

    ret = io_uring_queue_init(128, &ring, 0);
    if (ret != 0) {
        printf("Failed to initialize io_uring\n");
        return ret;
    }

    ts = (struct __kernel_timespec){
        .tv_sec = 60,
    };

    sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(&ring);
    if (!sqe) {
        printf("Full sq\n");
        return -1;
    }

    io_uring_prep_timeout(sqe, &ts, 1, 0);
    io_uring_sqe_set_data(sqe, NULL);

    do {
        ret = io_uring_submit_and_wait(&ring, 1);
        printf("got ret %d\n", ret);
    } while (ret == -EINTR);

    io_uring_queue_exit(&ring);

    return 0;
}

Re: io_uring_prep_timeout() leading to an IO pressure close to 100

[Jens Axboe]

On 4/1/26 8:59 AM, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
> 
> I'm currently investigating an issue with QEMU causing an IO pressure
> value of nearly 100 when io_uring is used for the event loop of a QEMU
> iothread (which is the case since QEMU 10.2 if io_uring is enabled
> during configuration and available).

It's not "IO pressure", it's the useless iowait metric...

> The cause seems to be the io_uring_prep_timeout() call that is used for
> blocking wait. I attached a minimal reproducer below, which exposes the
> issue [0].
> 
> This was observed on a kernel based on 7.0-rc6 as well as 6.17.13. I
> haven't investigated what happens inside the kernel yet, so I don't know
> if it is an accounting issue or within io_uring.
> 
> Let me know if you need more information or if I should test something
> specific.

If you won't want it, just turn it off with io_uring_set_iowait().

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: io_uring_prep_timeout() leading to an IO pressure close to 100

[Fiona Ebner]

Am 01.04.26 um 5:02 PM schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 4/1/26 8:59 AM, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> I'm currently investigating an issue with QEMU causing an IO pressure
>> value of nearly 100 when io_uring is used for the event loop of a QEMU
>> iothread (which is the case since QEMU 10.2 if io_uring is enabled
>> during configuration and available).
> 
> It's not "IO pressure", it's the useless iowait metric...

But it is reported as IO pressure by the kernel, i.e. /proc/pressure/io
(and for a cgroup, /sys/fs/cgroup/foo.slice/bar.scope/io.pressure).

>> The cause seems to be the io_uring_prep_timeout() call that is used for
>> blocking wait. I attached a minimal reproducer below, which exposes the
>> issue [0].
>>
>> This was observed on a kernel based on 7.0-rc6 as well as 6.17.13. I
>> haven't investigated what happens inside the kernel yet, so I don't know
>> if it is an accounting issue or within io_uring.
>>
>> Let me know if you need more information or if I should test something
>> specific.
> 
> If you won't want it, just turn it off with io_uring_set_iowait().

QEMU does submit actual IO request on the same ring and I suppose iowait
should still be used for those?

Maybe setting the IORING_ENTER_NO_IOWAIT flag if only the timeout
request is being submitted and no actual IO requests is an option? But
even then, if a request is submitted later via another thread, iowait
for that new request won't be accounted for, right?

Is there a way to say "I don't want IO wait for timeout submissions"?
Wouldn't that even make sense by default?

Best Regards,
Fiona

Re: io_uring_prep_timeout() leading to an IO pressure close to 100

[Fiona Ebner]

Am 02.04.26 um 11:12 AM schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Am 01.04.26 um 5:02 PM schrieb Jens Axboe:
>> On 4/1/26 8:59 AM, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>> I'm currently investigating an issue with QEMU causing an IO pressure
>>> value of nearly 100 when io_uring is used for the event loop of a QEMU
>>> iothread (which is the case since QEMU 10.2 if io_uring is enabled
>>> during configuration and available).
>>
>> It's not "IO pressure", it's the useless iowait metric...
> 
> But it is reported as IO pressure by the kernel, i.e. /proc/pressure/io
> (and for a cgroup, /sys/fs/cgroup/foo.slice/bar.scope/io.pressure).
> 
>>> The cause seems to be the io_uring_prep_timeout() call that is used for
>>> blocking wait. I attached a minimal reproducer below, which exposes the
>>> issue [0].
>>>
>>> This was observed on a kernel based on 7.0-rc6 as well as 6.17.13. I
>>> haven't investigated what happens inside the kernel yet, so I don't know
>>> if it is an accounting issue or within io_uring.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you need more information or if I should test something
>>> specific.
>>
>> If you won't want it, just turn it off with io_uring_set_iowait().
> 
> QEMU does submit actual IO request on the same ring and I suppose iowait
> should still be used for those?
> 
> Maybe setting the IORING_ENTER_NO_IOWAIT flag if only the timeout
> request is being submitted and no actual IO requests is an option? But
> even then, if a request is submitted later via another thread, iowait
> for that new request won't be accounted for, right?
> 
> Is there a way to say "I don't want IO wait for timeout submissions"?
> Wouldn't that even make sense by default?

Turns out, that in my QEMU instances, the branch doing the
io_uring_prep_timeout() call is not actually taken, so while the issue
could arise like that too, it's different in this practical case.

What I'm actually seeing is io_uring_submit_and_wait() being called with
wait_nr=1 while there is nothing else going on. So a more accurate
reproducer for the scenario is attached below [0]. Note that it does not
happen without sumbitting+completing a single request first.

Best Regards,
Fiona

[0]:

#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <liburing.h>

int main(void) {
    int fd;
    int ret;
    struct io_uring ring;
    struct io_uring_sqe *sqe;

    ret = io_uring_queue_init(128, &ring, 0);
    if (ret != 0) {
        printf("Failed to initialize io_uring\n");
        return ret;
    }

    // before submitting+advancing the issue does not happen
    // ret = io_uring_submit_and_wait(&ring, 1);
    // printf("got ret %d\n", ret);

    sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(&ring);
    if (!sqe) {
        printf("Full sq\n");
        return -1;
    }

    io_uring_prep_nop(sqe);

    do {
        ret = io_uring_submit_and_wait(&ring, 1);
    } while (ret == -EINTR);

    if (ret != 1) {
        printf("Expected to submit one\n");
        return -1;
    }

    // using peek+seen has the same effect
    // struct io_uring_cqe* cqe;
    // io_uring_peek_cqe(&ring, &cqe);
    // io_uring_cqe_seen(&ring, cqe);
    io_uring_cq_advance(&ring, 1);

    ret = io_uring_submit_and_wait(&ring, 1);
    printf("got ret %d\n", ret);

    io_uring_queue_exit(&ring);

    return 0;
}