From: Yuanhe Shu <xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add a schedule point in __io_req_caches_free()
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:44:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261020064452.3633250-3-xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261020064452.3633250-1-xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com>
The request cache can grow to the workload's in-flight high-water
mark. __io_req_caches_free() drains it with one
kmem_cache_free() per request under ctx->uring_lock, with no
scheduling point in between. With debug features like KASAN or
kmemleak enabled, each free gets expensive, and draining a large
cache can hold the CPU well beyond the soft lockup threshold.
Reproduced on mainline v7.3-rc7 on a 192-CPU debug kernel
(preempt=none), with a test that submits 32K requests per
ring and then kills the rings. Killing 48 rings at once made one
drain take up to 13 seconds with no scheduling point, with 8
kworkers each stuck for over 12 seconds; a separate run with 96
rings produced 97 soft lockup warnings during teardown, of the
form:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 12s! [kworker/u769:5]
Workqueue: iou_exit io_ring_exit_work
Call Trace:
stack_trace_save
kasan_save_stack
kmem_cache_free+0x3cf/0x6a0
__io_req_caches_free+0x196/0x4f0
io_ring_exit_work+0x287/0x880
process_one_work
Regardless of the per-free cost, the loop has no bound other than
the workload's in-flight high-water mark, so it belongs with the
other potentially long io_uring loops.
Insert a cond_resched() in the drain loop. The function is __cold;
all callers run in process context and hold only ctx->uring_lock,
a mutex, so scheduling is allowed.
Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Yuanhe Shu <xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com>
---
io_uring/io_uring.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 26cd91a91aa2..dffce8ce55d5 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -2142,6 +2142,7 @@ static __cold void __io_req_caches_free(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
io_poison_req(req);
kmem_cache_free(req_cachep, req);
nr++;
+ cond_resched();
}
if (nr) {
ctx->nr_req_allocated -= nr;
--
2.43.7
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-20 6:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-20 6:44 [PATCH 0/2] io_uring: add schedule points to request freeing loops Yuanhe Shu
2026-10-20 6:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: add a schedule point in io_free_batch_list() Yuanhe Shu
2026-10-20 6:44 ` Yuanhe Shu [this message]
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=20261020064452.3633250-3-xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=xiangzao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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®