linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] io_uring/io-wq: try to batch multiple free work

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: <e4be0a96-8e09-4591-96fe-a1d38208875a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:52:06 +0700
From: Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@...il.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] io_uring/io-wq: try to batch multiple free work

On 2/21/25 19:44, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/21/25 04:19, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
>> Currently, in case we don't use IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN, when io
>> worker frees work, it needs to add a task work. This creates contention
>> on tctx->task_list. With this commit, io work queues free work on a
>> local list and batch multiple free work in one call when the number of
>> free work in local list exceeds IO_REQ_ALLOC_BATCH.
>
> I see no relation to IO_REQ_ALLOC_BATCH, that should be
> a separate macro.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   io_uring/io-wq.c    | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   io_uring/io-wq.h    |  4 ++-
>>   io_uring/io_uring.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---
>>   io_uring/io_uring.h |  6 ++++-
>>   4 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
>> index 5d0928f37471..096711707db9 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
> ...
>> @@ -601,7 +622,41 @@ static void io_worker_handle_work(struct 
>> io_wq_acct *acct,
>>               wq->do_work(work);
>>               io_assign_current_work(worker, NULL);
>>   -            linked = wq->free_work(work);
>> +            /*
>> +             * All requests in free list must have the same
>> +             * io_ring_ctx.
>> +             */
>> +            if (last_added_ctx && last_added_ctx != req->ctx) {
>> +                flush_req_free_list(&free_list, tail);
>> +                tail = NULL;
>> +                last_added_ctx = NULL;
>> +                free_req = 0;
>> +            }
>> +
>> +            /*
>> +             * Try to batch free work when
>> +             * !IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN to reduce contention
>> +             * on tctx->task_list.
>> +             */
>> +            if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN)
>> +                linked = wq->free_work(work, NULL, NULL);
>> +            else
>> +                linked = wq->free_work(work, &free_list, &did_free);
>
> The problem here is that iowq is blocking and hence you lock up resources
> of already completed request for who knows how long. In case of unbound
> requests (see IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND) it's indefinite, and it's absolutely
> cannot be used without some kind of a timer. But even in case of bound
> work, it can be pretty long.
That's a good point, I've overlooked the fact that work handler might 
block indefinitely.
> Maybe, for bound requests it can target N like here, but read jiffies
> in between each request and flush if it has been too long. So in worst
> case the total delay is the last req execution time + DT. But even then
> it feels wrong, especially with filesystems sometimes not even
> honouring NOWAIT.
>
> The question is, why do you force it into the worker pool with the
> IOSQE_ASYNC flag? It's generally not recommended, and the name of the
> flag is confusing as it should've been more like "WORKER_OFFLOAD".


I launched more workers to parallel the work handler, but as you said, 
it seems like an incorrect use case.

However, I think the request free seems heavy, we need to create a task 
work so that we can hold the uring_lock to queue the request to 
ctx->submit_state->compl_reqs. Let me play around more to see if I can 
find an optimization for this.


Sorry for messing up in the previous reply, I've resent the reply for 
better read.

Quang Minh.