Re: [PATCH] aio: Fix return code of io_submit() (RFC)

[Jens Axboe]

On 2014-10-03 12:21, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:13:39PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 2014-10-03 12:08, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > io_submit() could return -EAGAIN on memory allocation failure when it should
> > > really have been returning -ENOMEM. This could confuse applications (i.e. fio)
> > > since -EAGAIN means "too many requests outstanding, wait until completions have
> > > been reaped" and if the application actually was tracking outstanding
> > > completions this wouldn't make a lot of sense.
> > >
> > > NOTE:
> > >
> > > the man page seems to imply that the current behaviour (-EAGAIN on allocation
> > > failure) has always been the case. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but
> > > this should probably be discussed more widely in case applications have somehow
> > > come to rely on the current behaviour...
> >
> > We can't really feasibly fix this, is my worry. Fio does track the pending
> > requests and does not get into a getevents() forever wait if it gets -EAGAIN
> > on submission. But before the fix, it would loop forever in submission in
> > -EAGAIN.
> >
> > How are applications supposed to deal with ENOMEM? I think the answer here
> > is that they can't, it would be a fatal condition. AIO must provide isn't
> > own guarantee of progress, with a mempool or similar.
>
> Well, even though the AIO code doesn't currently return -ENOMEM we definitely do
> have random other driver/filesystem code that will return -ENOMEM if a random
> GFP_KERNEL allocation fails (e.g. the dio code, if allocating a struct dio
> fails). So I think there's precedent for this, and having it be a fatal error
> when the system is under major memory pressure is not a crazy thing to do too.
>
> But OTOH maybe we should just use a mempool there.
>
> The argument against making it a mempool would be "we don't want io_submit() to
> block; even if that's not the case today, we at least have a chance of fixing it
> with the current setup. If we can't allocate memory for our asynchronous state,
> we really can't do anything there except block or fail".

It'll block anyway in other places, if we run out of resources there. 
But good point on the other potential -ENOMEM cases, it's not a new 
condition (potentially).

> I'm not sure I have strong feelings one way or the other.

Me neither...

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/