linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [RFC] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while registering/unregistering eventfd

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <02fb0bc3-fc38-b8f0-3067-edd2a525ef29@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:55:09 +0000
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     fam.zheng@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [RFC] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while
 registering/unregistering eventfd

On 2/3/22 15:44, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/3/22 15:14, Usama Arif wrote:
>> On 02/02/2022 19:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 9:57 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 8:59 AM, Usama Arif wrote:
>>>>> Acquire completion_lock at the start of __io_uring_register before
>>>>> registering/unregistering eventfd and release it at the end. Hence
>>>>> all calls to io_cqring_ev_posted which adds to the eventfd counter
>>>>> will finish before acquiring the spin_lock in io_uring_register, and
>>>>> all new calls will wait till the eventfd is registered. This avoids
>>>>> ring quiesce which is much more expensive than acquiring the
>>>>> spin_lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the system tested with this patch, io_uring_reigster with
>>>>> IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD takes less than 1ms, compared to 15ms before.
>>>>
>>>> This seems like optimizing for the wrong thing, so I've got a few
>>>> questions. Are you doing a lot of eventfd registrations (and
>>>> unregister) in your workload? Or is it just the initial pain of
>>>> registering one? In talking to Pavel, he suggested that RCU might be a
>>>> good use case here, and I think so too. That would still remove the
>>>> need to quiesce, and the posted side just needs a fairly cheap rcu
>>>> read lock/unlock around it.
>>>
>>> Totally untested, but perhaps can serve as a starting point or
>>> inspiration.
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for the replies and comments. My usecase registers only one eventfd at the start.
> 
> Then it's overkill. Update io_register_op_must_quiesce(), set ->cq_ev_fd
> on registration with WRITE_ONCE(), read it in io_cqring_ev_posted* with
> READ_ONCE() and you're set.

Actually needs smp_store_release/smp_load_acquire


> There is a caveat, ->cq_ev_fd won't be immediately visible to already
> inflight requests, but we can say it's the responsibility of the
> userspace to wait for a grace period, i.e. for all inflight requests
> submitted before registration io_cqring_ev_posted* might or might not
> see updated ->cq_ev_fd, which works perfectly if there was no requests
> in the first place. Of course it changes the behaviour so will need
> a new register opcode.
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov