Message-ID: <fc97036f-26a3-afb1-180f-30aa89d3cc01@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 19:54:49 +0000
From:   Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     fam.zheng@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while
 registering/unregistering eventfd



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@gmail.com/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_EVENTFD, i.e. wrap ctx->restrictions inside an RCU
protected data structure, use spin_lock to prevent multiple
io_register_restrictions calls at the same time, and use read_rcu_lock
in io_check_restriction, then we can remove ring quiesce from
io_uring_register altogether?

My usecase only uses IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD, but i think entering ring
quiesce costs similar in other opcodes. If the above sounds reasonable,
please let me know and i can send patches for removing ring quiesce for
io_uring_register.
"

Let me know if above makes sense, i can add patches on top of the 
current patchset, or we can do it after they get merged.

As for why, quiesce state is very expensive. its making 
io_uring_register the most expensive syscall in my usecase (~15ms) 
compared to ~0.1ms now with RCU, which is why i started investigating 
this. And this patchset avoids ring quiesce for 3 of the opcodes, so it 
would generally be quite helpful if someone does registers and 
unregisters eventfd multiple times.

Thanks,
Usama

Powered by blists - more mailing lists