lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.10-rc
From
Date
On 11/21/20 11:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:00 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I think we can do even better. How about just having
>> do_filp_open() exit after LOOKUP_RCU fails, if LOOKUP_RCU was already
>> set in the lookup flags? Then we don't need to change much else, and
>> most of it falls out naturally.
>
> So I was thinking doing the RCU lookup unconditionally, and then doing
> the nn-RCU lookup if that fails afterwards.
>
> But your patch looks good to me.
>
> Except for the issue you noticed.

After having taken a closer look, I think the saner approach is
LOOKUP_NONBLOCK instead of using LOOKUP_RCU which is used more as
a state than lookup flag. I'll try and hack something up that looks
passable.

>> Except it seems that should work, except LOOKUP_RCU does not guarantee
>> that we're not going to do IO:
>
> Well, almost nothing guarantees lack of IO, since allocations etc can
> still block, but..

Sure, and we can't always avoid that - but blatant block on waiting
for IO should be avoided.

>> [ 20.463195] schedule+0x5f/0xd0
>> [ 20.463444] io_schedule+0x45/0x70
>> [ 20.463712] bit_wait_io+0x11/0x50
>> [ 20.463981] __wait_on_bit+0x2c/0x90
>> [ 20.464264] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x86/0x90
>> [ 20.464611] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
>> [ 20.464932] __ext4_find_entry+0x2b5/0x410
>> [ 20.465254] ? d_alloc_parallel+0x241/0x4e0
>> [ 20.465581] ext4_lookup+0x51/0x1b0
>> [ 20.465855] ? __d_lookup+0x77/0x120
>> [ 20.466136] path_openat+0x4e8/0xe40
>> [ 20.466417] do_filp_open+0x79/0x100
>
> Hmm. Is this perhaps an O_CREAT case? I think we only do the dcache
> lookups under RCU, not the final path component creation.

It's just a basic test that opens all files under a directory. So
no O_CREAT, it's all existing files. I think this is just a case of not
aborting early enough for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK, and we've obviously already
dropped LOOKUP_RCU (and done rcu_read_unlock() again) at this point.

> And there are probably lots of other situations where we finish with
> LOOKUP_RCU (with unlazy_walk()), and then continue.>
> Example: look at "may_lookup()" - if inode_permission() says "I can't
> do this without blocking" the logic actually just tries to validate
> the current state (that "unlazy_walk()" thing), and then continue
> without RCU.
>
> It obviously hasn't been about lockless semantics, it's been about
> really being lockless. So LOOKUP_RCU has been a "try to do this
> locklessly" rather than "you cannot take any locks".
>
> I guess we would have to add a LOOKUP_NOBLOCK thing to actually then
> say "if the RCU lookup fails, return -EAGAIN".
>
> That's probably not a huge undertaking, but yeah, I didn't think of
> it. I think this is a "we need to have Al tell us if it's reasonable".

Definitely. I did have a weak attempt at LOOKUP_NONBLOCK earlier, I'll
try and resurrect it and see what that leads to. Outside of just pure
lookup, the d_revalidate() was a bit interesting as it may block for
certain cases, but those should be (hopefully) detectable upfront.

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-22 00:00    [W:0.116 / U:0.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site