From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Norman Maurer <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: Josef <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IORING_OP_READ and O_NONBLOCK behaviour
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:02:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 02/09/2020 19:00, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 02/09/2020 18:35, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/2/20 9:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2020 17:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/20 4:09 AM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are currently working on integrating io_uring into netty and found
>>>>> some “suprising” behaviour which seems like a bug to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a socket is marked as non blocking (accepted with O_NONBLOCK flag
>>>>> set) and there is no data to be read IORING_OP_READ should complete
>>>>> directly with EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK. This is not the case and it
>>>>> basically blocks forever until there is some data to read. Is this
>>>>> expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be somehow related to a bug that was fixed for
>>>>> IO_URING_ACCEPT with non blocking sockets:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.8&id=e697deed834de15d2322d0619d51893022c90ea2
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you that this is a bug, in general it's useful (and
>>>> expected) that we'd return -EAGAIN for that case. I'll take a look.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's I mentioned that doing retries for nonblock requests in
>>> io_wq_submit_work() doesn't look consistent. I think killing it
>>> off may help.
>>
>> Right, we should not retry those _in general_, the exception is regular
>> files or block devices to handle IOPOLL retry where we do need it. The
>> below is what I came up with for this one. Might not hurt to make this
>> more explicit for 5.10.
>
> Hmm, I didn't checked it, but if we
Oops, garbage text.
>
>>
>>
>> commit c78e0f02c3861b5b176b2f79552677b3604deb76
>> Author: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>> Date: Wed Sep 2 09:30:31 2020 -0600
>>
>> io_uring: no read-retry on -EAGAIN error and O_NONBLOCK marked file
>>
>> Actually two things that need fixing up here:
>>
>> - The io_rw_reissue() -EAGAIN retry is explicit to block devices and
>> regular files, so don't ever attempt to do that on other types of
>> files.
>>
>> - If we hit -EAGAIN on a nonblock marked file, don't arm poll handler for
>> it. It should just complete with -EAGAIN.
>>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Reported-by: Norman Maurer <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>> index b1ccd7072d93..dc27cd5b8ad6 100644
>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>> @@ -2300,8 +2300,11 @@ static bool io_resubmit_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, int error)
>> static bool io_rw_reissue(struct io_kiocb *req, long res)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
>> + umode_t mode = file_inode(req->file)->i_mode;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (!S_ISBLK(mode) && !S_ISREG(mode))
>> + return false;
>> if ((res != -EAGAIN && res != -EOPNOTSUPP) || io_wq_current_is_worker())
>> return false;
>>
>> @@ -3146,6 +3149,9 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock,
>> /* IOPOLL retry should happen for io-wq threads */
>> if (!force_nonblock && !(req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL))
>> goto done;
>> + /* no retry on NONBLOCK marked file */
>> + if (kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
>> + goto done;
>
> We clearing and setting IOCB_NOWAIT depending on @force_nonblock, so it may not
> work. E.g. with IOSQE_IO_ASYNC io_read() will clear it at the beginning.
> Maybe REQ_F_NOWAIT?
>
>> /* some cases will consume bytes even on error returns */
>> iov_iter_revert(iter, iov_count - iov_iter_count(iter));
>> ret = io_setup_async_rw(req, iovec, inline_vecs, iter, false);
>>
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-02 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-02 10:09 IORING_OP_READ and O_NONBLOCK behaviour Norman Maurer
2020-09-02 14:45 ` Jens Axboe
2020-09-02 15:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-09-02 15:35 ` Jens Axboe
2020-09-02 16:00 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-09-02 16:02 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-09-02 16:05 ` 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] \
[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