From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D825C433E0 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609B564EAC for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229849AbhBFQWb (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:22:31 -0500 Received: from out30-54.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.54]:50500 "EHLO out30-54.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229793AbhBFQWa (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:22:30 -0500 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R931e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=alimailimapcm10staff010182156082;MF=haoxu@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=4;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UO0KF8G_1612628503; Received: from B-25KNML85-0107.local(mailfrom:haoxu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UO0KF8G_1612628503) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:21:43 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: don't hold uring_lock when calling io_run_task_work* To: Pavel Begunkov , Jens Axboe Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Joseph Qi References: <1612364276-26847-1-git-send-email-haoxu@linux.alibaba.com> <1612364276-26847-3-git-send-email-haoxu@linux.alibaba.com> <9b1d9e51-1b92-a651-304d-919693f9fb6f@gmail.com> <3668106c-5e80-50c8-6221-bdfa246c98ae@linux.alibaba.com> <343f70ec-4c41-ed73-564e-494fca895e90@gmail.com> <150de65e-0f6a-315a-376e-8e3fcf07ce1a@linux.alibaba.com> <570f215e-7292-380a-1213-fe6e84881386@gmail.com> From: Hao Xu Message-ID: <54ea4dc7-648b-0db8-a5be-03d8373ca266@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 00:21:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570f215e-7292-380a-1213-fe6e84881386@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org 在 2021/2/5 下午6:18, Pavel Begunkov 写道: > On 05/02/2021 09:57, Hao Xu wrote: >> 在 2021/2/4 下午11:26, Pavel Begunkov 写道: >>> On 04/02/2021 11:17, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 04/02/2021 03:25, Hao Xu wrote: >>>>> 在 2021/2/4 上午12:45, Pavel Begunkov 写道: >>>>>> On 03/02/2021 16:35, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/02/2021 14:57, Hao Xu wrote: >>>>>>>> This is caused by calling io_run_task_work_sig() to do work under >>>>>>>> uring_lock while the caller io_sqe_files_unregister() already held >>>>>>>> uring_lock. >>>>>>>> we need to check if uring_lock is held by us when doing unlock around >>>>>>>> io_run_task_work_sig() since there are code paths down to that place >>>>>>>> without uring_lock held. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. we don't want to allow parallel io_sqe_files_unregister()s >>>>>>> happening, it's synchronised by uring_lock atm. Otherwise it's >>>>>>> buggy. >>>>> Here "since there are code paths down to that place without uring_lock held" I mean code path of io_ring_ctx_free(). >>>> >>>> I guess it's to the 1/2, but let me outline the problem again: >>>> if you have two tasks userspace threads sharing a ring, then they >>>> can both and in parallel call syscall:files_unregeister. That's >>>> a potential double percpu_ref_kill(&data->refs), or even worse. >>>> >>>> Same for 2, but racing for the table and refs. >>> >>> There is a couple of thoughts for this: >>> >>> 1. I don't like waiting without holding the lock in general, because >>> someone can submit more reqs in-between and so indefinitely postponing >>> the files_unregister. >> Thanks, Pavel. >> I thought this issue before, until I saw this in __io_uring_register: >> >>   if (io_register_op_must_quiesce(opcode)) { >>           percpu_ref_kill(&ctx->refs); > > It is different because of this kill, it will prevent submissions. > >> >>           /* >>           ¦* Drop uring mutex before waiting for references to exit. If >>           ¦* another thread is currently inside io_uring_enter() it might >>           ¦* need to grab the uring_lock to make progress. If we hold it >>           ¦* here across the drain wait, then we can deadlock. It's safe >>           ¦* to drop the mutex here, since no new references will come in >>           ¦* after we've killed the percpu ref. >>           ¦*/ >>           mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock); >>           do { >>                   ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&ctx->ref_comp); >>                   if (!ret) >>                           break; >>                   ret = io_run_task_work_sig(); >>                   if (ret < 0) >>                           break; >>           } while (1); >> >>           mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock); >> >>           if (ret) { >>                   percpu_ref_resurrect(&ctx->refs); >>                   goto out_quiesce; >>           } >>   } >> >> So now I guess the postponement issue also exits in the above code since >> there could be another thread submiting reqs to the shared ctx(or we can say uring fd). >> >>> 2. I wouldn't want to add checks for that in submission path. >>> >>> So, a solution I think about is to wait under the lock, If we need to >>> run task_works -- briefly drop the lock, run task_works and then do >>> all unregister all over again. Keep an eye on refs, e.g. probably >>> need to resurrect it. >>> >>> Because we current task is busy nobody submits new requests on >>> its behalf, and so there can't be infinite number of in-task_work >>> reqs, and eventually it will just go wait/sleep forever (if not >>> signalled) under the mutex, so we can a kind of upper bound on >>> time. >>> >> Do you mean sleeping with timeout rather than just sleeping? I think this works, I'll work on this and think about the detail. > > Without timeout -- it will be awaken when new task_works are coming in, > but Jens knows better. > Ah, gotcha, yes, I think it's because inserting a task_work raises a signal. >> But before addressing this issue, Should I first send a patch to just fix the deadlock issue? > > Do you mean the deadlock 2/2 was trying to fix? Or some else? The thread > is all about fixing it, but doing it right. Not sure there is a need for > faster but incomplete solution, if that's what you meant. >