Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while registering/unregistering eventfd

From: Pavel Begunkov
Date: Thu Feb 03 2022 - 17:07:43 EST


On 2/3/22 19:54, Usama Arif wrote:
On 03/02/2022 19:06, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2/3/22 12:00 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 2/3/22 18:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2/3/22 11:26 AM, Usama Arif wrote:
Hmm, maybe i didn't understand you and Pavel correctly. Are you
suggesting to do the below diff over patch 3? I dont think that would be
correct, as it is possible that just after checking if ctx->io_ev_fd is
present unregister can be called by another thread and set ctx->io_ev_fd
to NULL that would cause a NULL pointer exception later? In the current
patch, the check of whether ev_fd exists happens as the first thing
after rcu_read_lock and the rcu_read_lock are extremely cheap i believe.

They are cheap, but they are still noticeable at high requests/sec
rates. So would be best to avoid them.

And yes it's obviously racy, there's the potential to miss an eventfd
notification if it races with registering an eventfd descriptor. But
that's not really a concern, as if you register with inflight IO
pending, then that always exists just depending on timing. The only
thing I care about here is that it's always _safe_. Hence something ala
what you did below is totally fine, as we're re-evaluating under rcu
protection.

Indeed, the patch doesn't have any formal guarantees for propagation
to already inflight requests, so this extra unsynchronised check
doesn't change anything.

I'm still more сurious why we need RCU and extra complexity when
apparently there is no use case for that. If it's only about
initial initialisation, then as I described there is a much
simpler approach.

Would be nice if we could get rid of the quiesce code in general, but I
haven't done a check to see what'd be missing after this...


I had checked! I had posted below in in reply to v1 (https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/02fb0bc3-fc38-b8f0-3067-edd2a525ef29@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m5ac7867ac61d86fe62c099be793ffe5a9a334976), but i think it got missed! Copy-pasting here for reference:

"
I see that if we remove ring quiesce from the the above 3 opcodes, then
only IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS and IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS is
left for ring quiesce. I just had a quick look at those, and from what i
see we might not need to enter ring quiesce in
IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS as the ring is already disabled at that point?
And for IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS if we do a similar approach to

IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS and IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS are simpler,
we can just remove quiesce (i.e. put them into io_register_op_must_quiesce())
without any extra changes.

TL;DR;
That's because IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED prevents submitting requests
and so there will be no requests until IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS is
called. And IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS works only before
IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS was called.


--
Pavel Begunkov