From: Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
To: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: shutdown not affecting connection?
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 15:43:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD-J=zbxqDD_=Q-Y6T5DPycdKY=aDmvrjP08QSiuWao851UGUA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:29 PM Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/20 10:20 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps you can reduce the
> >>> problem to a small C reproducer?
> >>>
> >> That was my intended next step, yes
> > s***, I didn't resist and I had to explain to my wife that no, I don't
> > like io_uring more than I like her.
> >
> > But here it is.
> >
> > This is a modification of test/connect.c.
> > I added a pthread comparison example that should achieve the same
> > sequence of events:
> > - try to sync connect
> > - wait a bit
> > - shutdown
> >
> > I added a fixed wait for pthread to make sure that shutdown is not
> > called before connect.
> >
> > For io_uring, the shutdown is configurable with the program argument.
> > This works just fine if I sleep before shutdown (as I would expect from a race).
> > This hangs every time if I don't.
> >
> > Unless I am missing something I don't think this is the expected behavior
>
>
> I think it is understandable. Since the socket is blocking uring moves
> the work to a workqueue, and the shutdown() happens before the workqueue
> has had a chance to process the connection attempt. So we'll have to
> cancel the sqe.
It does seem to me that this implies that every shutdown must imply a cancel
to a connection.
From the user's perspective, this still feels like a bug to me:
the fact that we had to move this to a work queue is an implementation detail:
1) we asked the kernel to do something
2) the kernel returned
3) we called shutdown() to expecting that cancel to go away and never returned.
If cancel-after-connect to avoid these races is the intended behavior,
it would be nice to
get this documented somehow in the io_uring fantastic documentation.
In hindsight, cancel-on-shutdown is quite obvious and natural.
But I just spent two days to make this obvious and natural.
>
>
> Jens, does the blocking connect doesn't consume a kernel thread while
> it's waiting for a connection? Or does it just set things up and move on?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-08 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-08 13:55 shutdown not affecting connection? Glauber Costa
2020-02-08 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-08 18:42 ` Glauber Costa
2020-02-08 18:48 ` Avi Kivity
2020-02-08 18:57 ` Glauber Costa
2020-02-08 20:20 ` Glauber Costa
2020-02-08 20:28 ` Avi Kivity
2020-02-08 20:43 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2020-02-08 18:48 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-08 18:54 ` Glauber Costa
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 \
--in-reply-to='CAD-J=zbxqDD_=Q-Y6T5DPycdKY=aDmvrjP08QSiuWao851UGUA@mail.gmail.com' \
[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