linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] io_uring: re-issue block requests that failed because of resources
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:30:16 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <105a78f0-407f-09e3-5951-7f76756762b2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <da21ba82-c027-0c15-93e3-a372283d7030@kernel.dk>

On 19/06/2020 17:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:12 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 18/06/2020 17:43, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Mark the plug with nowait == true, which will cause requests to avoid
>>> blocking on request allocation. If they do, we catch them and reissue
>>> them from a task_work based handler.
>>>
>>> Normally we can catch -EAGAIN directly, but the hard case is for split
>>> requests. As an example, the application issues a 512KB request. The
>>> block core will split this into 128KB if that's the max size for the
>>> device. The first request issues just fine, but we run into -EAGAIN for
>>> some latter splits for the same request. As the bio is split, we don't
>>> get to see the -EAGAIN until one of the actual reads complete, and hence
>>> we cannot handle it inline as part of submission.
>>>
>>> This does potentially cause re-reads of parts of the range, as the whole
>>> request is reissued. There's currently no better way to handle this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/io_uring.c | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>  1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> index 2e257c5a1866..40413fb9d07b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> @@ -900,6 +900,13 @@ static int io_file_get(struct io_submit_state *state, struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>  static void __io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>  			   const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe);
>>>  
>> ...> +
>>> +static void io_rw_resubmit(struct callback_head *cb)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(cb, struct io_kiocb, task_work);
>>> +	struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
>>> +	int err;
>>> +
>>> +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>> +
>>> +	err = io_sq_thread_acquire_mm(ctx, req);
>>> +
>>> +	if (io_resubmit_prep(req, err)) {
>>> +		refcount_inc(&req->refs);
>>> +		io_queue_async_work(req);
>>> +	}
>>
>> Hmm, I have similar stuff but for iopoll. On top removing grab_env* for
>> linked reqs and some extra. I think I'll rebase on top of this.
> 
> Yes, there's certainly overlap there. I consider this series basically
> wrapped up, so feel free to just base on top of it.
> 
>>> +static bool io_rw_reissue(struct io_kiocb *req, long res)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
>>> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if ((res != -EAGAIN && res != -EOPNOTSUPP) || io_wq_current_is_worker())
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	tsk = req->task;
>>> +	init_task_work(&req->task_work, io_rw_resubmit);
>>> +	ret = task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, true);
>>
>> I don't like that the request becomes un-discoverable for cancellation
>> awhile sitting in the task_work list. Poll stuff at least have hash_node
>> for that.
> 
> Async buffered IO was never cancelable, so it doesn't really matter.
> It's tied to the task, so we know it'll get executed - either run, or
> canceled if the task is going away. This is really not that different
> from having the work discoverable through io-wq queueing before, since
> the latter could never be canceled anyway as it sits there
> uninterruptibly waiting for IO completion.

Makes sense. I was thinking about using this task-requeue for all kinds
of requests. Though, instead of speculating it'd be better for me to embody
ideas into patches and see.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-19 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-18 14:43 Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 01/15] block: provide plug based way of signaling forced no-wait semantics Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 02/15] io_uring: always plug for any number of IOs Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: catch -EIO from buffered issue request failure Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 04/15] io_uring: re-issue block requests that failed because of resources Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 14:12   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-19 14:22     ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 14:30       ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-06-19 14:36         ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 05/15] mm: allow read-ahead with IOCB_NOWAIT set Jens Axboe
2020-06-24  1:02   ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-24  1:46     ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-24 15:00       ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 15:35         ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24 16:41           ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-24 16:44             ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 11:38               ` Andreas Grünbacher
2020-07-07 14:31                 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-10 22:56               ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-10 23:03                 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-24  4:38   ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-24 15:01     ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 06/15] mm: abstract out wake_page_match() from wake_page_function() Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 07/15] mm: add support for async page locking Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 11:32   ` Andreas Grünbacher
2020-07-07 14:32     ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 08/15] mm: support async buffered reads in generic_file_buffered_read() Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 09/15] fs: add FMODE_BUF_RASYNC Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 10/15] block: flag block devices as supporting IOCB_WAITQ Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 11/15] xfs: flag files as supporting buffered async reads Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 12/15] btrfs: " Jens Axboe
2020-06-19 11:11   ` David Sterba
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 13/15] ext4: flag " Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 14/15] mm: add kiocb_wait_page_queue_init() helper Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:43 ` [PATCH 15/15] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it Jens Axboe
2020-06-23 12:39   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-23 14:38     ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-18 14:45 ` [PATCHSET v7 0/12] Add support for async buffered reads Jens Axboe

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=105a78f0-407f-09e3-5951-7f76756762b2@gmail.com \
    --to=asml.silence@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).