Re: [PATCH v2] eventpoll: fix missing wakeup for ovflist in ep_poll_callback

[Khazhismel Kumykov]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 9:17 AM Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/20 3:00 PM, Khazhismel Kumykov wrote:
> > In the event that we add to ovflist, before 339ddb53d373 we would be
> > woken up by ep_scan_ready_list, and did no wakeup in ep_poll_callback.
> > With that wakeup removed, if we add to ovflist here, we may never wake
> > up. Rather than adding back the ep_scan_ready_list wakeup - which was
> > resulting in unnecessary wakeups, trigger a wake-up in ep_poll_callback.
>
> I'm just curious which 'wakeup' we are talking about here? There is:
> wake_up(&ep->wq) for the 'ep' and then there is the nested one via:
> ep_poll_safewake(ep, epi). It seems to me that its only about the later
> one being missing not both? Is your workload using nested epoll?
>
> If so, it might make sense to just do the later, since the point of
> the original patch was to minimize unnecessary wakeups.

The missing wake-ups were when we added to ovflist instead of rdllist.
Both are "the ready list" together - so I'd think we'd want the same
wakeups regardless of which specific list we added to.
ep_poll_callback isn't nested specific?

>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
>
> >
> > We noticed that one of our workloads was missing wakeups starting with
> > 339ddb53d373 and upon manual inspection, this wakeup seemed missing to
> > me. With this patch added, we no longer see missing wakeups. I haven't
> > yet tried to make a small reproducer, but the existing kselftests in
> > filesystem/epoll passed for me with this patch.
> >
> > Fixes: 339ddb53d373 ("fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of nested epoll")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Heiher <r@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2: use if/elif instead of goto + cleanup suggested by Roman
> >  fs/eventpoll.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > index 8c596641a72b..d6ba0e52439b 100644
> > --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> > +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > @@ -1171,6 +1171,10 @@ static inline bool chain_epi_lockless(struct epitem *epi)
> >  {
> >       struct eventpoll *ep = epi->ep;
> >
> > +     /* Fast preliminary check */
> > +     if (epi->next != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> >       /* Check that the same epi has not been just chained from another CPU */
> >       if (cmpxchg(&epi->next, EP_UNACTIVE_PTR, NULL) != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR)
> >               return false;
> > @@ -1237,16 +1241,12 @@ static int ep_poll_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, v
> >        * chained in ep->ovflist and requeued later on.
> >        */
> >       if (READ_ONCE(ep->ovflist) != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR) {
> > -             if (epi->next == EP_UNACTIVE_PTR &&
> > -                 chain_epi_lockless(epi))
> > +             if (chain_epi_lockless(epi))
> > +                     ep_pm_stay_awake_rcu(epi);
> > +     } else if (!ep_is_linked(epi)) {
> > +             /* In the usual case, add event to ready list. */
> > +             if (list_add_tail_lockless(&epi->rdllink, &ep->rdllist))
> >                       ep_pm_stay_awake_rcu(epi);
> > -             goto out_unlock;
> > -     }
> > -
> > -     /* If this file is already in the ready list we exit soon */
> > -     if (!ep_is_linked(epi) &&
> > -         list_add_tail_lockless(&epi->rdllink, &ep->rdllist)) {
> > -             ep_pm_stay_awake_rcu(epi);
> >       }
> >
> >       /*
> >

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature