Re: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: trigger timeout after any sqe->off CQEs

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 23/04/2020 01:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/22/20 4:20 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 20/04/2020 23:15, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2020 23:12, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2020 22:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/20 11:20 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>> +static void __io_flush_timeouts(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	u32 end, start;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	start = end = ctx->cached_cq_tail;
>>>>>> +	do {
>>>>>> +		struct io_kiocb *req = list_first_entry(&ctx->timeout_list,
>>>>>> +							struct io_kiocb, list);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		if (req->flags & REQ_F_TIMEOUT_NOSEQ)
>>>>>> +			break;
>>>>>> +		/*
>>>>>> +		 * multiple timeouts may have the same target,
>>>>>> +		 * check that @req is in [first_tail, cur_tail]
>>>>>> +		 */
>>>>>> +		if (!io_check_in_range(req->timeout.target_cq, start, end))
>>>>>> +			break;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		list_del_init(&req->list);
>>>>>> +		io_kill_timeout(req);
>>>>>> +		end = ctx->cached_cq_tail;
>>>>>> +	} while (!list_empty(&ctx->timeout_list));
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  static void io_commit_cqring(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>  	struct io_kiocb *req;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -	while ((req = io_get_timeout_req(ctx)) != NULL)
>>>>>> -		io_kill_timeout(req);
>>>>>> +	if (!list_empty(&ctx->timeout_list))
>>>>>> +		__io_flush_timeouts(ctx);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  	__io_commit_cqring(ctx);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> Any chance we can do this without having to iterate timeouts on the
>>>>> completion path?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the one in __io_flush_timeouts(), then no, unless we forbid timeouts
>>>> with identical target sequences + some extra constraints. The loop there is not
>>>> new, it iterates only over timeouts, that need to be completed, and removes
>>>> them. That's amortised O(1).
>>>
>>> We can think about adding unlock/lock, if that's what you are thinking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, there was a loop in io_timeout_fn() doing in
>>>> total O(n^2), and it was killed by this patch.
>>>
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> I'll return fixing the last timeout bug I saw, but I'd prefer to know
>> on top of what to do that.
> 
> I think it's fine, but also likely something that we should defer to
> 5.8. So if there are minor fixes to be done for 5.7, it should be
> arranged as such.

Right, totally agree

-- 
Pavel Begunkov