linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io

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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:43:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:11:29PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:

> @@ -2717,15 +2757,18 @@ static int io_cqring_wait(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, int min_events,
>  			return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	iowq.nr_timeouts = atomic_read(&ctx->cq_timeouts);
> +	prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&ctx->wait, &iowq.wq, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +	do {
> +		if (io_should_wake(&iowq))
> +			break;
> +		schedule();
> +		if (signal_pending(current))
> +			break;
> +		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +	} while (1);
> +	finish_wait(&ctx->wait, &iowq.wq);

It it likely OK, but for paranoia, I'd prefer this form:

	for (;;) {
		prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&ctx->wait, &iowq.wq, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
		if (io_should_wake(&iowq))
			break;
		schedule();
		if (signal_pending(current))
			break;
	}
	finish_wait(&ctx->wait, &iowq.wq);

The thing is, if we ever succeed with io_wake_function() (that CPU
observes io_should_wake()), but when waking here, we do not observe
is_wake_function() and go sleep again, we might never wake up if we
don't put ourselves back on the wait-list again.