Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add memory barrier to synchronize io_kiocb's result and iopoll_completed

Jens Axboe
2020-06-15T15:02:46Z

On 6/15/20 8:48 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> hi,
>
>> On 6/15/20 3:24 AM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>>> In io_complete_rw_iopoll(), stores to io_kiocb's result and iopoll
>>> completed are two independent store operations, to ensure that once
>>> iopoll_completed is ture and then req->result must been perceived by
>>> the cpu executing io_do_iopoll(), proper memory barrier should be used.
>>>
>>> And in io_do_iopoll(), we check whether req->result is EAGAIN, if it is,
>>> we'll need to issue this io request using io-wq again. In order to just
>>> issue a single smp_rmb() on the completion side, move the re-submit work
>>> to io_iopoll_complete().
>>
>> Did you actually test this one?
> I only run test cases in liburing/test in a vm.
>
>>
>>> @@ -1736,11 +1748,20 @@ static void io_iopoll_complete(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned int *nr_events,
>>> {
>>> struct req_batch rb;
>>> struct io_kiocb *req;
>>> + LIST_HEAD(again);
>>> +
>>> + /* order with ->result store in io_complete_rw_iopoll() */
>>> + smp_rmb();
>>>
>>> rb.to_free = rb.need_iter = 0;
>>> while (!list_empty(done)) {
>>> int cflags = 0;
>>>
>>> + if (READ_ONCE(req->result) == -EAGAIN) {
>>> + req->iopoll_completed = 0;
>>> + list_move_tail(&req->list, &again);
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>> req = list_first_entry(done, struct io_kiocb, list);
>>> list_del(&req->list);
>>>
>>
>> You're using 'req' here before you initialize it...
> Sorry, next time when I submit patches, I'll construct test cases which
> will cover my codes changes.

I'm surprised the compiler didn't complain, or that the regular testing
didn't barf on it.

Don't think you need a new test case for this, the iopoll test case
should cover it, if you limit the queue depth on the device by
setting /sys/block/<dev>/queue/nr_requests to 2 or something like
that.

--
Jens Axboe