IO-Uring Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Carter Li 李通洲" <carter.li@eoitek.com>,
	"Pavel Begunkov" <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work_run: don't take ->pi_lock unconditionally
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:52:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20200221145256.GA16646@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200220174932.GB18400@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 02/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 06:22:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > @@ -68,10 +65,10 @@ task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *task, task_work_func_t func)
> >  	 * we raced with task_work_run(), *pprev == NULL/exited.
> >  	 */
> >  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> > +	for (work = READ_ONCE(*pprev); work; ) {
> >  		if (work->func != func)
> >  			pprev = &work->next;
>
> But didn't you loose the READ_ONCE() of *pprev in this branch?

Argh, yes ;)

> > @@ -97,16 +94,16 @@ void task_work_run(void)
> >  		 * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> >  		 * work_exited unless the list is empty.
> >  		 */
> > +		work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
> >  		do {
> >  			head = NULL;
> >  			if (!work) {
> >  				if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
> >  					head = &work_exited;
> >  				else
> >  					break;
> >  			}
> > +		} while (!try_cmpxchg(&task->task_works, &work, head));
> >
> >  		if (!work)
> >  			break;
>
> But given that, as you say, cancel() could have gone and stole our head,
> should we not try and install &work_exiting when PF_EXITING in that
> case?

cancel() can't do this, as long as we use cmpxchg/try_cmpxchg, not xchg().
This is what the comment before lock/unlock below tries to explain.

> That is; should we not do continue in that case, instead of break.

This is what we should do if we use xchg() like your previous version did.
Or I am totally confused. Hmm, and when I re-read my words it looks as if
I am trying to confuse you.

So lets "simplify" this code assuming that PF_EXITING is set:

		work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
		do {
			head = NULL;
			if (!work)
				head = &work_exited;
		} while (!try_cmpxchg(&task->task_works, &work, head));

		if (!work)
			break;

If work == NULL after try_cmpxchg() _succeeds_, then the new "head" must
be work_exited and we have nothing to do.

If it was nullified by try_cmpxchg(&work) because we raced with cancel_(),
then this try_cmpxchg() should have been failed.

Right?

> @@ -69,9 +68,12 @@ task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *tas
>  	 */
>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
>  	while ((work = READ_ONCE(*pprev))) {
> -		if (work->func != func)
> +		if (work->func != func) {
>  			pprev = &work->next;
> -		else if (cmpxchg(pprev, work, work->next) == work)
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (try_cmpxchg(pprev, &work, work->next))
>  			break;

perhaps I misread this code, but it looks a bit strange to me... it doesn't
differ from

	while ((work = READ_ONCE(*pprev))) {
		if (work->func != func)
			pprev = &work->next;
		else if (try_cmpxchg(pprev, &work, work->next))
			break;
	}

either way it is correct, the only problem is that we do not need (want)
another READ_ONCE() if try_cmpxchg() fails.

>  void task_work_run(void)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *task = current;
> -	struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
> +	struct callback_head *work, *next;
>  
>  	for (;;) {
> -		/*
> -		 * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> -		 * work_exited unless the list is empty.
> -		 */
> -		do {
> -			head = NULL;
> -			work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
> -			if (!work) {
> -				if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
> -					head = &work_exited;
> -				else
> -					break;
> -			}
> -		} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
> +		work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
> +		if (!work) {
> +			if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING))
> +				return;
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> +			 * work_exited unless the list is empty.
> +			 */
> +			if (try_cmpxchg(&task->task_works, &work, &work_exited))
> +				return;
> +		}
> +
> +		work = xchg(&task->task_works, NULL);
> +		if (!work)
> +			continue;

looks correct...

Oleg.


  reply index

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-12 16:31 [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-12 17:11 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-12 17:22   ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-12 17:29     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-13  0:33   ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-13 15:08     ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-13 15:14       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-13 15:51         ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-14  1:25           ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-14  2:45             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14  5:03               ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 15:32                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-14 15:47                   ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 16:18                     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 17:52                       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 20:44                         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15  0:16                           ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15  1:10                             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15  1:25                               ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15  1:27                                 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15  6:01                                   ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15  6:32                                     ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15 15:11                                       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 19:06                                     ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-16 22:23                                       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 10:30                                         ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-17 19:30                                           ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 23:06                                       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 23:07                                         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 12:09                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-17 16:12                             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 17:16                               ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 17:46                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-17 18:16                                   ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 13:13                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 14:27                                       ` [PATCH] asm-generic/atomic: Add try_cmpxchg() fallbacks Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 14:40                                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 10:30                                         ` Will Deacon
2020-02-20 10:37                                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 10:39                                             ` Will Deacon
2020-02-18 14:56                                       ` [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-18 15:07                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-18 15:38                                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 16:33                                             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 15:07                                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 15:50                                           ` [PATCH] task_work_run: don't take ->pi_lock unconditionally Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-20 16:39                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 17:22                                               ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-20 17:49                                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-21 14:52                                                   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2020-02-24 18:47                                                     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 19:17                                                       ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 19:25                                                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 19:28                                                           ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:06                                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 20:15                                                               ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 16:46                                       ` [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 16:52                                         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 13:13                               ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200221145256.GA16646@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=carter.li@eoitek.com \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

IO-Uring Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/0 io-uring/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 io-uring io-uring/ https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring \
		io-uring@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index io-uring

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.io-uring


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git