2020-04-30 19:35:33

by Pavel Begunkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] timeout fixes

[1,2] are small random patches.
[3,4] are the last 2 timeout patches, but with 1 var renamed.
[5] fixes a timeout problem related to batched CQ commits. From
what I see, this should be the last fixing timeouts.

Pavel Begunkov (5):
io_uring: check non-sync defer_list carefully
io_uring: pass nxt from sync_file_range()
io_uring: trigger timeout after any sqe->off CQEs
io_uring: don't trigger timeout with another t-out
io_uring: fix timeout offset with batch CQ commit

fs/io_uring.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)

--
2.24.0


2020-05-01 08:24:48

by Pavel Begunkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] timeout fixes

On 30/04/2020 22:31, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> [1,2] are small random patches.
> [3,4] are the last 2 timeout patches, but with 1 var renamed.
> [5] fixes a timeout problem related to batched CQ commits. From
> what I see, this should be the last fixing timeouts.

Something gone wrong with testing or rebasing. Never mind this.

>
> Pavel Begunkov (5):
> io_uring: check non-sync defer_list carefully
> io_uring: pass nxt from sync_file_range()
> io_uring: trigger timeout after any sqe->off CQEs
> io_uring: don't trigger timeout with another t-out
> io_uring: fix timeout offset with batch CQ commit
>
> fs/io_uring.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
>

--
Pavel Begunkov

2020-05-01 09:41:45

by Pavel Begunkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] timeout fixes

On 01/05/2020 11:21, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 30/04/2020 22:31, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> [1,2] are small random patches.
>> [3,4] are the last 2 timeout patches, but with 1 var renamed.
>> [5] fixes a timeout problem related to batched CQ commits. From
>> what I see, this should be the last fixing timeouts.
>
> Something gone wrong with testing or rebasing. Never mind this.

io_uring-5.7 hangs the first test in link_timeout.c. I'll debug it today,
but by any chance, does anyone happen to know something?

>
>>
>> Pavel Begunkov (5):
>> io_uring: check non-sync defer_list carefully
>> io_uring: pass nxt from sync_file_range()
>> io_uring: trigger timeout after any sqe->off CQEs
>> io_uring: don't trigger timeout with another t-out
>> io_uring: fix timeout offset with batch CQ commit
>>
>> fs/io_uring.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
>>
>

--
Pavel Begunkov

2020-05-01 13:57:49

by Jens Axboe

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] timeout fixes

On 5/1/20 3:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 01/05/2020 11:21, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 30/04/2020 22:31, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> [1,2] are small random patches.
>>> [3,4] are the last 2 timeout patches, but with 1 var renamed.
>>> [5] fixes a timeout problem related to batched CQ commits. From
>>> what I see, this should be the last fixing timeouts.
>>
>> Something gone wrong with testing or rebasing. Never mind this.
>
> io_uring-5.7 hangs the first test in link_timeout.c. I'll debug it today,
> but by any chance, does anyone happen to know something?

That's not your stuff, see:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/T/#ma61d47f59eaaa7f04ae686c117fab69c957e0d7d

which then just turned into a modification to a patch in io_uring-5.7
instead. Just force rebase that branch and it should work fine.

--
Jens Axboe

2020-05-01 13:59:05

by Pavel Begunkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] timeout fixes

On 01/05/2020 07:26, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/1/20 3:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 01/05/2020 11:21, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2020 22:31, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> [1,2] are small random patches.
>>>> [3,4] are the last 2 timeout patches, but with 1 var renamed.
>>>> [5] fixes a timeout problem related to batched CQ commits. From
>>>> what I see, this should be the last fixing timeouts.
>>>
>>> Something gone wrong with testing or rebasing. Never mind this.
>>
>> io_uring-5.7 hangs the first test in link_timeout.c. I'll debug it today,
>> but by any chance, does anyone happen to know something?
>

Yeah, just found the culprit myself

> That's not your stuff, see:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/T/#ma61d47f59eaaa7f04ae686c117fab69c957e0d7d
>
> which then just turned into a modification to a patch in io_uring-5.7
> instead. Just force rebase that branch and it should work fine.

Got it, thanks

--
Pavel Begunkov