Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while
 registering/unregistering eventfd
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     fam.zheng@bytedance.com
References: <20220203174108.668549-1-usama.arif@bytedance.com>
 <20220203174108.668549-3-usama.arif@bytedance.com>
 <ffa271c7-3f49-2b5a-b67e-3bb1b052ee4e@kernel.dk>
 <877d54b9-5baa-f0b5-23fe-25aef78e37c4@bytedance.com>
 <dc6bb53f-19cc-ee23-2137-6e27396f7d57@kernel.dk>
 <ac5f5152-f9e4-8e83-642b-73c2620ce7c0@gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <a5992789-6b0b-f3a8-0a24-e00add2a005a@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:06:40 -0700
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: <ac5f5152-f9e4-8e83-642b-73c2620ce7c0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/3/22 12:00 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/3/22 18:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 11:26 AM, Usama Arif wrote:
>>> Hmm, maybe i didn't understand you and Pavel correctly. Are you
>>> suggesting to do the below diff over patch 3? I dont think that would be
>>> correct, as it is possible that just after checking if ctx->io_ev_fd is
>>> present unregister can be called by another thread and set ctx->io_ev_fd
>>> to NULL that would cause a NULL pointer exception later? In the current
>>> patch, the check of whether ev_fd exists happens as the first thing
>>> after rcu_read_lock and the rcu_read_lock are extremely cheap i believe.
>>
>> They are cheap, but they are still noticeable at high requests/sec
>> rates. So would be best to avoid them.
>>
>> And yes it's obviously racy, there's the potential to miss an eventfd
>> notification if it races with registering an eventfd descriptor. But
>> that's not really a concern, as if you register with inflight IO
>> pending, then that always exists just depending on timing. The only
>> thing I care about here is that it's always _safe_. Hence something ala
>> what you did below is totally fine, as we're re-evaluating under rcu
>> protection.
> 
> Indeed, the patch doesn't have any formal guarantees for propagation
> to already inflight requests, so this extra unsynchronised check
> doesn't change anything.
> 
> I'm still more сurious why we need RCU and extra complexity when
> apparently there is no use case for that. If it's only about
> initial initialisation, then as I described there is a much
> simpler approach.

Would be nice if we could get rid of the quiesce code in general, but I
haven't done a check to see what'd be missing after this...

-- 
Jens Axboe