From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
Ming Lei <[email protected]>
Cc: David Howells <[email protected]>,
Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] io_uring: fix IO hang in io_wq_put_and_exit from do_exit()
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 02:03:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 9/7/23 16:36, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/1/23 9:13 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 21:49:16 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> io_wq_put_and_exit() is called from do_exit(), but all FIXED_FILE requests
>>> in io_wq aren't canceled in io_uring_cancel_generic() called from do_exit().
>>> Meantime io_wq IO code path may share resource with normal iopoll code
>>> path.
>>>
>>> So if any HIPRI request is submittd via io_wq, this request may not get resouce
>>> for moving on, given iopoll isn't possible in io_wq_put_and_exit().
>>>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [1/1] io_uring: fix IO hang in io_wq_put_and_exit from do_exit()
>> commit: b484a40dc1f16edb58e5430105a021e1916e6f27
>
> This causes a regression with the test/thread-exit.t test case, as it's
> canceling requests from other tasks as well. I will drop this patch for
> now.
And this one has never hit my mailbox... Anyway, I'm confused with
the issue:
1) request tracking is done only for io_uring polling io_uring, which
shouldn't be the case for t/io_uring, so it's probably unrelated?
2) In case of iopoll, io-wq only submits a request but doesn't wait/poll
for it. If io_issue_sqe() returned -EAGAIN or an error, the request is
considered not yet submitted to block and can be just cancelled normally
without any dancing like io_iopoll_try_reap_events().
3) If we condense the code it sounds like it effectively will be
like this:
void io_wq_exit_start(struct io_wq *wq)
{
set_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state);
}
io_uring_cancel_generic()
{
if (tctx->io_wq)
io_wq_exit_start(tctx->io_wq);
io_uring_clean_tctx(tctx);
...
}
We set the flag, interrupt workers (TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL + wake up), and
wait for them. Workers are woken up (or just return), see
the flag and return. At least that's how it was intended to work.
What's missing? Racing for IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT? Not breaking on IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT
correctly? Not honouring / clearing TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL?
I'll try to repro later
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-08 1:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-01 13:49 [PATCH V2] io_uring: fix IO hang in io_wq_put_and_exit from do_exit() Ming Lei
2023-09-01 14:47 ` Jens Axboe
2023-09-01 15:12 ` Ming Lei
2023-09-01 15:13 ` Jens Axboe
2023-09-01 15:13 ` Jens Axboe
2023-09-07 15:36 ` Jens Axboe
2023-09-08 1:03 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2023-09-08 6:22 ` Ming Lei
2023-09-08 16:01 ` Pavel Begunkov
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] \
[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