From: Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
Slava Pestov <sp@daterainc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Fix return code of io_submit() (RFC)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:21:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141003182151.GD17903@daterainc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542EE753.20005@kernel.dk>
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".
I'm not sure I have strong feelings one way or the other.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-03 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-03 18:08 Kent Overstreet
2014-10-03 18:13 ` Jens Axboe
2014-10-03 18:21 ` Kent Overstreet [this message]
2014-10-03 18:25 ` Jens Axboe
2014-10-03 18:22 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2014-10-03 18:31 ` Kent Overstreet
2014-10-03 18:39 ` Jens Axboe
2014-10-03 18:36 ` Jens Axboe
2014-10-03 18:19 ` Benjamin LaHaise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141003182151.GD17903@daterainc.com \
--to=kmo@daterainc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sp@daterainc.com \
--cc=zab@zabbo.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®