From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring/rw: always clear ->bytes_done on io_async_rw setup
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:02:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2024 09:58:18 -0700")
Jens Axboe <[email protected]> writes:
> On 12/30/24 9:08 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Jens Axboe <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> A previous commit mistakenly moved the clearing of the in-progress byte
>>> count into the section that's dependent on having a cached iovec or not,
>>> but it should be cleared for any IO. If not, then extra bytes may be
>>> added at IO completion time, causing potentially weird behavior like
>>> over-reporting the amount of IO done.
>>
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay. I went completely offline during the christmas
>> week.
>
> No worries, sounds like a good plan!
>
>> Did this solve the sysbot report? I'm failing to understand how it can
>> happen. This could only be hit if the allocation returned a cached
>> object that doesn't have a free_iov, since any newly kmalloc'ed object
>> will have this field cleaned inside the io_rw_async_data_init callback.
>> But I don't understand where we can cache the rw object without having a
>> valid free_iov - it didn't seem possible to me before or now.
>
> Not sure I follow - you may never have a valid free_iov, it completely
> depends on whether or not the existing rw user needed to allocate an iov
> or not.
> Hence it's indeed possible that there's a free_iov and the user
> doesn't need or use it, or the opposite of there not being one and the
> user then allocating one that persists.
>
> In any case, it's of course orthogonal to the issue here, which is that
> ->bytes_done must _always_ be initialized, it has no dependency on a
> free_iovec or not. Whenever someone gets an 'rw', it should be pristine
> in that sense.
I see. In addition, I was actually confusing rw->free_iov_nr with
rw->bytes_done when writing my previous message. The first needs to
have a valid value if ->free_iov is valid. Thanks for the explanation
and making me review this code.
The fix looks good to me now, obviously.
Thanks,
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-30 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-27 16:53 [PATCH] io_uring/rw: always clear ->bytes_done on io_async_rw setup Jens Axboe
2024-12-30 16:08 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-12-30 16:58 ` Jens Axboe
2024-12-30 23:02 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [this message]
2024-12-31 0:13 ` 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] \
/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