From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D64431DDF5 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:47:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710730059; cv=none; b=beOaikFtVu5Unc3cllG8nBw39LDNLw1F3QhUjMXqy0PjRtPf4Gjjpzxv/zayCAZdzQrCWv89hQZUydGJJ8T25fboXPg/+PkwEx3SXpB4M0hrpmpZw15RLRs4azh3wP+sjkCZdY+ARJO71n5ugqqvaCEmFWjR7CS8ZG8nfpp1kzc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710730059; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HN1jDpzP3GxbggsHKoF+Mh0Hy/uaMinvjsuEnckvUTw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kTuC5CvNB2faTCqYQQZ4PZdWkEdqTy2LDhiqYYt+saqXZFvY1is1KylKe/sTLezMHfAe6Oqw3mSoaiWIlQum7jfZ3X68YQ1rga5BX4MM583yD2F4s/dVE7VcSd/lhNQSU4cR5OcoIOBN943sQ/W0r2PdnIokgFKAN3gKs0G3np0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=UXGhStUS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="UXGhStUS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710730056; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AxqDpzDsUwlcVPxsuoqElHVaNTfNWeLnsqb+m30L8Dw=; b=UXGhStUS7HT4kfhky0QQHSY9bUpCrGasyhD705weYxVMchC2APDSB08OeNibj3Oilj6pJF C9RvdHoXsh7IWiNSodmrSYpK55jlTkOFFUcUUsDQBtyi0To5SFmDO4+8iwtBRsY4eayhLR VbnYoOrDtn16+07QZz7XA+BloeCqsNg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-118-jT4FGwZ4M9GDFvQzbAwUYA-1; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:47:32 -0400 X-MC-Unique: jT4FGwZ4M9GDFvQzbAwUYA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E68685A58C; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:47:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.15]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28681C060A4; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:47:20 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jens Axboe Cc: Pavel Begunkov , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Kanchan Joshi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] io_uring/cmd: fix tw <-> issue_flags conversion Message-ID: References: <6291a6f9-61e0-4e3f-b070-b61e8764fb63@kernel.dk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6291a6f9-61e0-4e3f-b070-b61e8764fb63@kernel.dk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.7 On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 08:40:59PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 3/17/24 8:32 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > On 3/18/24 02:25, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 3/17/24 8:23 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:41:47AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >>>> !IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED does not translate to availability of the deferred > >>>> completion infra, IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER does, that what we should > >>>> pass and look for to use io_req_complete_defer() and other variants. > >>>> > >>>> Luckily, it's not a real problem as two wrongs actually made it right, > >>>> at least as far as io_uring_cmd_work() goes. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov > >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/eb08e72e837106963bc7bc7dccfd93d646cc7f36.1710514702.git.asml.silence@gmail.com > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe > > > > oops, I should've removed all the signed-offs > > > >>>> --- > >>>> io_uring/uring_cmd.c | 10 ++++++++-- > >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c > >>>> index f197e8c22965..ec38a8d4836d 100644 > >>>> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c > >>>> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c > >>>> @@ -56,7 +56,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_mark_cancelable); > >>>> static void io_uring_cmd_work(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts) > >>>> { > >>>> struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_uring_cmd); > >>>> - unsigned issue_flags = ts->locked ? 0 : IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED; > >>>> + unsigned issue_flags = IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED; > >>>> + > >>>> + /* locked task_work executor checks the deffered list completion */ > >>>> + if (ts->locked) > >>>> + issue_flags = IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER; > >>>> ioucmd->task_work_cb(ioucmd, issue_flags); > >>>> } > >>>> @@ -100,7 +104,9 @@ void io_uring_cmd_done(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd, ssize_t ret, ssize_t res2, > >>>> if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL) { > >>>> /* order with io_iopoll_req_issued() checking ->iopoll_complete */ > >>>> smp_store_release(&req->iopoll_completed, 1); > >>>> - } else if (!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED)) { > >>>> + } else if (issue_flags & IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER) { > >>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED)) > >>>> + return; > >>>> io_req_complete_defer(req); > >>>> } else { > >>>> req->io_task_work.func = io_req_task_complete; > >>> > >>> 'git-bisect' shows the reported warning starts from this patch. > > > > Thanks Ming > > > >> > >> That does make sense, as probably: > >> > >> + /* locked task_work executor checks the deffered list completion */ > >> + if (ts->locked) > >> + issue_flags = IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER; > >> > >> this assumption isn't true, and that would mess with the task management > >> (which is in your oops). > > > > I'm missing it, how it's not true? > > > > > > static void ctx_flush_and_put(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_tw_state *ts) > > { > > ... > > if (ts->locked) { > > io_submit_flush_completions(ctx); > > ... > > } > > } > > > > static __cold void io_fallback_req_func(struct work_struct *work) > > { > > ... > > mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock); > > llist_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, node, io_task_work.node) > > req->io_task_work.func(req, &ts); > > io_submit_flush_completions(ctx); > > mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock); > > ... > > } > > I took a look too, and don't immediately see it. Those are also the two > only cases I found, and before the patches, looks fine too. > > So no immediate answer there... But I can confirm that before this > patch, test passes fine. With the patch, it goes boom pretty quick. > Either directly off putting the task, or an unrelated memory crash > instead. In ublk, the translated 'issue_flags' is passed to io_uring_cmd_done() from ioucmd->task_work_cb()(__ublk_rq_task_work()). That might be related with the reason. Thanks, Ming