Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix IO hang in io_wq_put_and_exit from do_exit()

Ming Lei
2023-09-01T08:57:40Z

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:17:25AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2023/9/1 10:09, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:50:02AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> >> On 2023/8/31 15:42, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> io_wq_put_and_exit() is called from do_exit(), but all requests in io_wq
> >>> aren't cancelled in io_uring_cancel_generic() called from do_exit().
> >>> Meantime io_wq IO code path may share resource with normal iopoll code
> >>> path.
> >>>
> >>> So if any HIPRI request is pending in io_wq_submit_work(), this request
> >>> may not get resouce for moving on, given iopoll isn't possible in
> >>> io_wq_put_and_exit().
> >>>
> >>> The issue can be triggered when terminating 't/io_uring -n4 /dev/nullb0'
> >>> with default null_blk parameters.
> >>>
> >>> Fix it by always cancelling all requests in io_wq from io_uring_cancel_generic(),
> >>> and this way is reasonable because io_wq destroying follows cancelling
> >>> requests immediately. Based on one patch from Chengming.
> >>
> >> Thanks much for this work, I'm still learning these code, so maybe some
> >> silly questions below.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/3893581.1691785261@warthog.procyon.org.uk/
> >>> Reported-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>,
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> io_uring/io_uring.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >>> index e7675355048d..18d5ab969c29 100644
> >>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ struct io_defer_entry {
> >>>
> >>> static bool io_uring_try_cancel_requests(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >>> struct task_struct *task,
> >>> - bool cancel_all);
> >>> + bool cancel_all, bool *wq_cancelled);
> >>>
> >>> static void io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -3049,7 +3049,7 @@ static __cold void io_ring_exit_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>> if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN)
> >>> io_move_task_work_from_local(ctx);
> >>>
> >>> - while (io_uring_try_cancel_requests(ctx, NULL, true))
> >>> + while (io_uring_try_cancel_requests(ctx, NULL, true, NULL))
> >>> cond_resched();
> >>>
> >>> if (ctx->sq_data) {
> >>> @@ -3231,12 +3231,13 @@ static __cold bool io_uring_try_cancel_iowq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> >>>
> >>> static __cold bool io_uring_try_cancel_requests(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >>> struct task_struct *task,
> >>> - bool cancel_all)
> >>> + bool cancel_all, bool *wq_cancelled)
> >>> {
> >>> - struct io_task_cancel cancel = { .task = task, .all = cancel_all, };
> >>> + struct io_task_cancel cancel = { .task = task, .all = true, };
> >>> struct io_uring_task *tctx = task ? task->io_uring : NULL;
> >>> enum io_wq_cancel cret;
> >>> bool ret = false;
> >>> + bool wq_active = false;
> >>>
> >>> /* set it so io_req_local_work_add() would wake us up */
> >>> if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN) {
> >>> @@ -3249,7 +3250,7 @@ static __cold bool io_uring_try_cancel_requests(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> if (!task) {
> >>> - ret |= io_uring_try_cancel_iowq(ctx);
> >>> + wq_active = io_uring_try_cancel_iowq(ctx);
> >>> } else if (tctx && tctx->io_wq) {
> >>> /*
> >>> * Cancels requests of all rings, not only @ctx, but
> >>> @@ -3257,11 +3258,20 @@ static __cold bool io_uring_try_cancel_requests(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >>> */
> >>> cret = io_wq_cancel_cb(tctx->io_wq, io_cancel_task_cb,
> >>> &cancel, true);
> >>> - ret |= (cret != IO_WQ_CANCEL_NOTFOUND);
> >>> + wq_active = (cret != IO_WQ_CANCEL_NOTFOUND);
> >>> }
> >>> + ret |= wq_active;
> >>> + if (wq_cancelled)
> >>> + *wq_cancelled = !wq_active;
> >>
> >> Here it seems "wq_cancelled" means no any pending or running work anymore.
> >
> > wq_cancelled means all requests in io_wq are canceled.
> >
> >>
> >> Why not just use the return value "loop", instead of using this new "wq_cancelled"?
> >>
> >> If return value "loop" is true, we know there is still any request need to cancel,
> >> so we will loop the cancel process until there is no any request.
> >>
> >> Ah, I guess you may want to cover one case: !wq_active && loop == true
> >
> > If we just reply on 'loop', things could be like passing 'cancel_all' as
> > true, that might be over-kill. And I am still not sure why not canceling
> > all requests(cancel_all is true) in do_exit()?
> >
>
> Yes, I'm also confused by this. Could we just remove the "cancel_all"?
>
> If we always cancel all requests, these code would be much simpler,
> and we can free task_ctx here, instead of in the last reference put
> of task_struct.

Thinking of further, switch to `cancel_all`(maybe `global` is easier to follow)
has risk, including this patch, io_uring_ctx instance can be used
from multiple pthreads, if other pthreads submit IOs, then new live lock
is caused by reaping events on ctx->iopoll_list.

And the 1st approach[1] should work by stopping reap when io_wq is
destroyed, after fixing issue of ordering io_uring_del_tctx_node and
io_wq_put_and_exit().

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230825090959.1866771-3-ming.lei@redhat.com/

>
> > But here it is enough to cancel all requests in io_wq only for solving
> > this IO hang issue.
>
> Ok, get it.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - /* SQPOLL thread does its own polling */
> >>> - if ((!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) && cancel_all) ||
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * SQPOLL thread does its own polling
> >>> + *
> >>> + * io_wq may share IO resources(such as requests) with iopoll, so
> >>> + * iopoll requests have to be reapped for providing forward
> >>> + * progress to io_wq cancelling
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) ||
> >>> (ctx->sq_data && ctx->sq_data->thread == current)) {
> >>> while (!wq_list_empty(&ctx->iopoll_list)) {
> >>> io_iopoll_try_reap_events(ctx);
> >>> @@ -3313,11 +3323,12 @@ __cold void io_uring_cancel_generic(bool cancel_all, struct io_sq_data *sqd)
> >>> atomic_inc(&tctx->in_cancel);
> >>> do {
> >>> bool loop = false;
> >>> + bool wq_cancelled;
> >>>
> >>> io_uring_drop_tctx_refs(current);
> >>> /* read completions before cancelations */
> >>> inflight = tctx_inflight(tctx, !cancel_all);
> >>> - if (!inflight)
> >>> + if (!inflight && !tctx->io_wq)
> >>> break;
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think this inflight check should put after the cancel loop, because the
> >> cancel loop make sure there is no any request need to cancel, then we can
> >> loop inflight checking to make sure all inflight requests to complete.
> >
> > But it is fine to break immediately in case that (!inflight && !tctx->io_wq) is true.
> >
>
> This inflight will used after cancel, maybe some requests become inflight during cancel process?
> So we use a stale inflight value? I'm not sure.

Yeah, it could be possible, such as new submission from io_run_local_work(), but it
is easy to handle, such as, kill the 'if (!inflight) break', meantime not sleep
in case of !inflight.

Thanks,
Ming