linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a7d6f2fd-b59e-e6fa-475a-23962d45b6fa@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:51:19 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation

On 6/10/21 4:38 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 10:03 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/9/21 11:08 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
>>> It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns
>>> EAGAIN,
>>> the data becomes available between that failure and the call to
>>> vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler().
>>>
>>> Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster
>>> than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq.
>>
>> The poll stuff is not perfect and definitely can be improved,
>> but there are drawbacks, with this one fairness may suffer
>> with higher submit batching and make lat worse for all
>> but one request.
>>
>> I'll get to it and another poll related email later,
>> probably next week.
>>
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> I am looking forward to see the improved solution that you succeed
> coming up with.
> 
> However, I want to bring 1 detail to your attention in case that it
> went unnoticed.
> 
> If io_arm_poll_handler() returns false because vfs_poll() returns a non
> zero value, reissuing the sqe will be attempted at most only 1 time
> because req->flags will have REQ_F_POLLED and on the second time
> io_arm_poll_handler() will be called, it will immediately return false.
> 
> With this detail in mind, I honestly did not think that this would make
> the function unfair for the other requests in a batch submission
> compared to the cost of pushing the request to io-wq that possibly
> includes an io worker thread creation.
> 
> Does this detail can change your verdict?
> If not, I would really be interested to know more about your fairness
> concern.

Right, but it still stalls other requests and IIRC there are people
not liking the syscall already taking too long. Consider
io_req_task_queue(), adds more overhead but will delay execution
to the syscall exit.

In any case, would be great to have numbers, e.g. to see if
io_req_task_queue() is good enough, how often your problem
takes places and how much it gives us.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov