Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io-wq: set task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state before
 schedule_timeout
To:     qiang.zhang@windriver.com
Cc:     io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20201027030911.16596-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <bc138db4-4609-b8e6-717a-489cf2027fc0@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:35:00 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201027030911.16596-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/26/20 9:09 PM, qiang.zhang@windriver.com wrote:
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> 
> In 'io_wqe_worker' thread, if the work which in 'wqe->work_list' be
> finished, the 'wqe->work_list' is empty, and after that the
> '__io_worker_idle' func return false, the task state is TASK_RUNNING,
> need to be set TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before call schedule_timeout func.

I don't think that's safe - what if someone added work right before you
call schedule_timeout_interruptible? Something ala:


io_wq_enqueue()
			set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE();
			schedule_timeout(WORKER_IDLE_TIMEOUT);

then we'll have work added and the task state set to running, but the
worker itself just sets us to non-running and will hence wait
WORKER_IDLE_TIMEOUT before the work is processed.

The current situation will do one extra loop for this case, as the
schedule_timeout() just ends up being a nop and we go around again
checking for work. Since we already unused the mm, the next iteration
will go to sleep properly unless new work came in.

-- 
Jens Axboe