From: Victor Stewart <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [BUG? liburing] io_uring_register_files_update with liburing 2.0 on 5.13.17
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 22:55:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM1kxwi6EMGZeNW_imNZq4jMkJ3NeuDdkeGBkRMKpwJPQ8Rxmw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 9:38 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 2:26 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/18/21 2:13 PM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 3:41 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 9/18/21 7:41 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> > >>> just auto updated from 5.13.16 to 5.13.17, and suddenly my fixed
> > >>> file registrations fail with EOPNOTSUPP using liburing 2.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> static inline struct io_uring ring;
> > >>> static inline int *socketfds;
> > >>>
> > >>> // ...
> > >>>
> > >>> void enableFD(int fd)
> > >>> {
> > >>> int result = io_uring_register_files_update(&ring, fd,
> > >>> &(socketfds[fd] = fd), 1);
> > >>> printf("enableFD, result = %d\n", result);
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> maybe this is due to the below and related work that
> > >>> occurred at the end of 5.13 and liburing got out of sync?
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/992da01aa932b432ef8dc3885fa76415b5dbe43f#diff-79ffab63f24ef28eec3badbc8769e2a23e0475ab1fbe390207269ece944a0824
> > >>>
> > >>> and can't use liburing 2.1 because of the api changes since 5.13.
> > >>
> > >> That's very strange, the -EOPNOTSUPP should only be possible if you
> > >> are not passing in the ring fd for the register syscall. You should
> > >> be able to mix and match liburing versions just fine, the only exception
> > >> is sometimes between releases (of both liburing and the kernel) where we
> > >> have the liberty to change the API of something that was added before
> > >> release.
> > >>
> > >> Can you do an strace of it and attach?
> > >
> > > oh ya the EOPNOTSUPP was my bug introduced trying to debug.
> > >
> > > here's the real bug...
> > >
> > > io_uring_register(13, IORING_REGISTER_FILES, [-1, -1, -1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
> > > 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
> > > -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
> > > -1, ...], 32768) = -1 EMFILE (Too many open files)
> > >
> > > 32,768 is 1U << 15 aka IORING_MAX_FIXED_FILES, but i tried
> > > 16,000 just to try and same issue.
> > >
> > > maybe you're not allowed to have pre-filled (aka non negative 1)
> > > entries upon the initial io_uring_register_files call anymore?
> > >
> > > this was working until the 5.13.16 -> 5.13.17 transition.
> >
> > Ah yes that makes more sense. You need to up RLIMIT_NOFILE, the
> > registered files are under that protection now too. This is also why it
> > was brought back to stable. A bit annoying, but it was needed for the
> > direct file support to have some sanity there.
> >
> > So use rlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE,...) from the app or ulimit -n to bump the
> > limit.
>
perfect got it working with..
struct rlimit maxFilesLimit = {N_IOURING_MAX_FIXED_FILES,
N_IOURING_MAX_FIXED_FILES};
setrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE, &maxFilesLimit);
> BTW, this could be incorporated into io_uring_register_files and
> io_uring_register_files_tags(), might not be a bad idea in general. Just
> have it check rlim.rlim_cur for RLIMIT_NOFILE, and if it's smaller than
> 'nr_files', then bump it. That'd hide it nicely, instead of throwing a
> failure.
the implicit bump sounds like a good idea (at least in theory?).
another thing i think might be a good idea is an io_uring
change/migration log that we update with every kernel release covering
new features but also new restrictions/requirements/tweaks etc.
something that would take 1 minute to skim and see if relevant.
because at this point to stay fully updated requires reading all of the
mailing list or checking pulls on your branch + running to binaries
to see if anything breaks.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-18 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-18 13:41 [BUG? liburing] io_uring_register_files_update with liburing 2.0 on 5.13.17 Victor Stewart
2021-09-18 14:41 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-18 20:13 ` Victor Stewart
2021-09-18 20:26 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-18 20:38 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-18 21:55 ` Victor Stewart [this message]
2021-09-18 22:21 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-18 23:19 ` Victor Stewart
2021-09-18 23:23 ` Victor Stewart
2021-09-18 23:37 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-18 23:40 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-19 4:15 ` Vito Caputo
2021-09-19 14:16 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-20 12:51 ` Victor Stewart
2021-09-20 13:10 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-20 13:19 ` Victor Stewart
2021-09-19 11:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-09-19 14:24 ` 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 \
--in-reply-to=CAM1kxwi6EMGZeNW_imNZq4jMkJ3NeuDdkeGBkRMKpwJPQ8Rxmw@mail.gmail.com \
[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