Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] io_uring/zcrx: add refcount to ifq and remove ifq->ctx

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

On 10/29/25 15:22, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/28/25 17:46, David Wei wrote:
>> Add a refcount to struct io_zcrx_ifq to track the number of rings that
>> share it. For now, this is only ever 1 i.e. not shared.
>>
>> This refcount replaces the ref that the ifq holds on ctx->refs via the
>> page pool memory provider. This was used to keep the ifq around until
>> the ring ctx is being freed i.e. ctx->refs fall to 0. But with ifq now
>> being refcounted directly by the ring, and ifq->ctx removed, this is no
>> longer necessary.
>>
>> Since ifqs now no longer hold refs to ring ctx, there isn't a need to
>> split the cleanup of ifqs into two: io_shutdown_zcrx_ifqs() in
>> io_ring_exit_work() while waiting for ctx->refs to drop to 0, and
>> io_unregister_zcrx_ifqs() after. Remove io_shutdown_zcrx_ifqs().
>>
>> So an ifq now behaves like a normal refcounted object; the last ref from
>> a ring will free the ifq.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Wei <dw@davidwei.uk>
>> ---
>>   io_uring/io_uring.c |  5 -----
>>   io_uring/zcrx.c     | 24 +++++-------------------
>>   io_uring/zcrx.h     |  6 +-----
>>   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> index 7d42748774f8..8af5efda9c11 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> @@ -3042,11 +3042,6 @@ static __cold void io_ring_exit_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>               io_cqring_overflow_kill(ctx);
>>               mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
>>           }
>> -        if (!xa_empty(&ctx->zcrx_ctxs)) {
>> -            mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
>> -            io_shutdown_zcrx_ifqs(ctx);
>> -            mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
>> -        }
>>           if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN)
>>               io_move_task_work_from_local(ctx);
>> diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> index b3f3d55d2f63..6324dfa61ce0 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> @@ -479,7 +479,6 @@ static struct io_zcrx_ifq *io_zcrx_ifq_alloc(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>           return NULL;
>>       ifq->if_rxq = -1;
>> -    ifq->ctx = ctx;
>>       spin_lock_init(&ifq->rq_lock);
>>       mutex_init(&ifq->pp_lock);
>>       return ifq;
>> @@ -592,6 +591,7 @@ int io_register_zcrx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>>       ifq = io_zcrx_ifq_alloc(ctx);
>>       if (!ifq)
>>           return -ENOMEM;
>> +    refcount_set(&ifq->refs, 1);
>>       if (ctx->user) {
>>           get_uid(ctx->user);
>>           ifq->user = ctx->user;
>> @@ -714,19 +714,6 @@ static void io_zcrx_scrub(struct io_zcrx_ifq *ifq)
>>       }
>>   }
>> -void io_shutdown_zcrx_ifqs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> -{
>> -    struct io_zcrx_ifq *ifq;
>> -    unsigned long index;
>> -
>> -    lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);
>> -
>> -    xa_for_each(&ctx->zcrx_ctxs, index, ifq) {
>> -        io_zcrx_scrub(ifq);
>> -        io_close_queue(ifq);
>> -    }
>> -}
>> -
>>   void io_unregister_zcrx_ifqs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>   {
>>       struct io_zcrx_ifq *ifq;
>> @@ -743,7 +730,10 @@ void io_unregister_zcrx_ifqs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>           }
>>           if (!ifq)
>>               break;
>> -        io_zcrx_ifq_free(ifq);
>> +        if (refcount_dec_and_test(&ifq->refs)) {
>> +            io_zcrx_scrub(ifq);
>> +            io_zcrx_ifq_free(ifq);
>> +        }
>>       }
>>       xa_destroy(&ctx->zcrx_ctxs);
>> @@ -894,15 +884,11 @@ static int io_pp_zc_init(struct page_pool *pp)
>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>> -    percpu_ref_get(&ifq->ctx->refs);
>>       return 0;
> 
> refcount_inc();

Which would add another ref cycle problem, the same that IIRC
was solved with two step shutdown + release. I'll take a closer
look.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov