linux-kernel - RE: [patch] aio: add per task aio wait event condition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <001101c72edf$6821f8b0$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:32:25 -0800
From:	"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
To:	"'Zach Brown'" <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc:	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...l.org>, <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Benjamin LaHaise'" <bcrl@...ck.org>, <suparna@...ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [patch] aio: add per task aio wait event condition

Zach Brown wrote on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:06 PM
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > Zach Brown wrote on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 5:24 PM
> >>> That is not possible because when multiple tasks waiting for
> >>> events, they
> >>> enter the wait queue in FIFO order, prepare_to_wait_exclusive() does
> >>> __add_wait_queue_tail().  So first io_getevents() with min_nr of 2
> >>> will be woken up when 2 ops completes.
> >>
> >> So switch the order of the two sleepers in the example?
> >
> > Not sure why that would be a problem though:  whoever sleep first will
> > be woken up first.
> 
> Why would the min_nr = 3 sleeper be woken up in that case?  Only 2  
> ios were issued.
> 
> Maybe the app was relying on the min_nr = 2 completion to issue 3  
> more ios for the min_nr = 3 sleeper, who knows.
> 
> Does that clear up the confusion?

Not really. I don't think I understand your concern. You gave an example:

issue 2 ops
first io_getevents sleeps with a min_nr of 2
second io_getevents sleeps with min_nr of 3
2 ops complete but only test the second sleeper's min_nr of 3
first sleeper twiddles thumbs

Or:

issue 2 ops
first io_getevents sleeps with a min_nr of 3
second io_getevents sleeps with min_nr of 2
2 ops complete but only test the second sleeper's min_nr of 2
first sleeper twiddles thumbs

First scenario doesn't exist because in the new scheme, we test first
sleeper (as in head of the queue) when 2 ops complete. It wakes up first.

2nd scenario is OK to me because first sleeper waiting for 3 events,
and there are only 2 ops completed, so it waits.

The one scenario that I can think of that breaks down is that one task
sleeps with min_nr of 100.  Then 50 ops completed.  Comes along 2nd
thread does a io_getevents and it will take all 50 events in the 2nd
thread.  Is that what you are talking about?  It doesn't involve two
sleepers.  That I can fix by testing whether wait queue is active or
not at the beginning of fast path in read_events().

The bigger question is: what is the semantics on event reap order for
thread? Random, FIFO or round robin?  It is not specified anywhere.
What would be the most optimal policy?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/