6.18-stable inclusion request

6.18-stable inclusion request

[Jens Axboe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 324 bytes --]

Hi Greg/stable,

Can you add these two patches to the 6.18-stable queue? You can also
just cherry pick these in order:

38aa434ab9335ce2d178b7538cdf01d60b2014c3
91214661489467f8452d34edbf257488d85176e4

It's in the nice-to-have category just to be consistent with the
older/current stable release.

Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-io_uring-io-wq-add-exit-on-idle-state.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3060 bytes --]

From efa9f164e9345e613b50c203eb763922a3d130d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:37:53 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring/io-wq: add exit-on-idle state

Commit 38aa434ab9335ce2d178b7538cdf01d60b2014c3 upstream.

io-wq uses an idle timeout to shrink the pool, but keeps the last worker
around indefinitely to avoid churn.

For tasks that used io_uring for file I/O and then stop using io_uring,
this can leave an iou-wrk-* thread behind even after all io_uring
instances are gone. This is unnecessary overhead and also gets in the
way of process checkpoint/restore.

Add an exit-on-idle state that makes all io-wq workers exit as soon as
they become idle, and provide io_wq_set_exit_on_idle() to toggle it.

Signed-off-by: Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
---
 io_uring/io-wq.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 io_uring/io-wq.h |  1 +
 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
index 56b6a8257959..49a9c914b4e9 100644
--- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
+++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ enum {
 
 enum {
 	IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT		= 0,	/* wq exiting */
+	IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT_ON_IDLE	= 1,	/* allow all workers to exit on idle */
 };
 
 enum {
@@ -706,9 +707,13 @@ static int io_wq_worker(void *data)
 		raw_spin_lock(&acct->workers_lock);
 		/*
 		 * Last sleep timed out. Exit if we're not the last worker,
-		 * or if someone modified our affinity.
+		 * or if someone modified our affinity. If wq is marked
+		 * idle-exit, drop the worker as well. This is used to avoid
+		 * keeping io-wq workers around for tasks that no longer have
+		 * any active io_uring instances.
 		 */
-		if (last_timeout && (exit_mask || acct->nr_workers > 1)) {
+		if ((last_timeout && (exit_mask || acct->nr_workers > 1)) ||
+		    test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT_ON_IDLE, &wq->state)) {
 			acct->nr_workers--;
 			raw_spin_unlock(&acct->workers_lock);
 			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
@@ -965,6 +970,24 @@ static bool io_wq_worker_wake(struct io_worker *worker, void *data)
 	return false;
 }
 
+void io_wq_set_exit_on_idle(struct io_wq *wq, bool enable)
+{
+	if (!wq->task)
+		return;
+
+	if (!enable) {
+		clear_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT_ON_IDLE, &wq->state);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (test_and_set_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT_ON_IDLE, &wq->state))
+		return;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	io_wq_for_each_worker(wq, io_wq_worker_wake, NULL);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+}
+
 static void io_run_cancel(struct io_wq_work *work, struct io_wq *wq)
 {
 	do {
diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.h b/io_uring/io-wq.h
index 774abab54732..94b14742b703 100644
--- a/io_uring/io-wq.h
+++ b/io_uring/io-wq.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct io_wq_data {
 struct io_wq *io_wq_create(unsigned bounded, struct io_wq_data *data);
 void io_wq_exit_start(struct io_wq *wq);
 void io_wq_put_and_exit(struct io_wq *wq);
+void io_wq_set_exit_on_idle(struct io_wq *wq, bool enable);
 
 void io_wq_enqueue(struct io_wq *wq, struct io_wq_work *work);
 void io_wq_hash_work(struct io_wq_work *work, void *val);
-- 
2.51.0


[-- Attachment #3: 0002-io_uring-allow-io-wq-workers-to-exit-when-unused.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1743 bytes --]

From 6809ad872df9f746f737ab762ee72f1d9a692c1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:37:54 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: allow io-wq workers to exit when unused

Commit 91214661489467f8452d34edbf257488d85176e4 upstream.

io_uring keeps a per-task io-wq around, even when the task no longer has
any io_uring instances.

If the task previously used io_uring for file I/O, this can leave an
unrelated iou-wrk-* worker thread behind after the last io_uring
instance is gone.

When the last io_uring ctx is removed from the task context, mark the
io-wq exit-on-idle so workers can go away. Clear the flag on subsequent
io_uring usage.

Signed-off-by: Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
---
 io_uring/tctx.c | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/io_uring/tctx.c b/io_uring/tctx.c
index 5b66755579c0..03c278aa5812 100644
--- a/io_uring/tctx.c
+++ b/io_uring/tctx.c
@@ -122,6 +122,14 @@ int __io_uring_add_tctx_node(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 				return ret;
 		}
 	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Re-activate io-wq keepalive on any new io_uring usage. The wq may have
+	 * been marked for idle-exit when the task temporarily had no active
+	 * io_uring instances.
+	 */
+	if (tctx->io_wq)
+		io_wq_set_exit_on_idle(tctx->io_wq, false);
 	if (!xa_load(&tctx->xa, (unsigned long)ctx)) {
 		node = kmalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!node)
@@ -183,6 +191,9 @@ __cold void io_uring_del_tctx_node(unsigned long index)
 	if (tctx->last == node->ctx)
 		tctx->last = NULL;
 	kfree(node);
+
+	if (xa_empty(&tctx->xa) && tctx->io_wq)
+		io_wq_set_exit_on_idle(tctx->io_wq, true);
 }
 
 __cold void io_uring_clean_tctx(struct io_uring_task *tctx)
-- 
2.51.0

Re: 6.18-stable inclusion request

[Jens Axboe]

On 2/11/26 4:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi Greg/stable,
> 
> Can you add these two patches to the 6.18-stable queue? You can also
> just cherry pick these in order:
> 
> 38aa434ab9335ce2d178b7538cdf01d60b2014c3
> 91214661489467f8452d34edbf257488d85176e4
> 
> It's in the nice-to-have category just to be consistent with the
> older/current stable release.

Oh and since 6.19 is out as well, 6.19-stable queue as well, please.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: 6.18-stable inclusion request

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:21:35AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/11/26 4:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Hi Greg/stable,
> > 
> > Can you add these two patches to the 6.18-stable queue? You can also
> > just cherry pick these in order:
> > 
> > 38aa434ab9335ce2d178b7538cdf01d60b2014c3
> > 91214661489467f8452d34edbf257488d85176e4
> > 
> > It's in the nice-to-have category just to be consistent with the
> > older/current stable release.
> 
> Oh and since 6.19 is out as well, 6.19-stable queue as well, please.

Now done, thanks!

greg k-h