On 10/16/20 5:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 17:13, Jens Axboe wrote: >> /** >> * task_work_add - ask the @task to execute @work->func() >> * @task: the task which should run the callback >> * @work: the callback to run >> * @notify: how to notify the targeted task >> * >> * Queue @work for task_work_run() below and notify the @task if @notify >> * is @TWA_RESUME or @TWA_SIGNAL. @TWA_SIGNAL work like signals, in that the > > s/the//
Thanks, good catch. >> * it will interrupt the targeted task and run the task_work. @TWA_RESUME >> * work is run only when the task exits the kernel and returns to user mode. >> * Fails if the @task is exiting/exited and thus it can't process this @work. >> * Otherwise @work->func() will be called when the @task returns from kernel >> * mode or exits. > > Yes, that makes a lot more sense. > > What's still lacking is a description of the return value and how to act > upon it. That's really up to the caller. But we should add some explanation of that. Most callers use some alternative if the task is exiting, like using a work queue for example. > Most of the call sites ignore it, some are acting upon it but I can't If you know the task isn't exiting, then yeah you can ignore it. But seems a bit dicey... > make any sense of these actions: > > fs/io_uring.c- notify = 0; > fs/io_uring.c- if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) && > twa_signal_ok) > fs/io_uring.c- notify = TWA_SIGNAL; > fs/io_uring.c- > fs/io_uring.c: ret = task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, notify); > fs/io_uring.c- if (!ret) > fs/io_uring.c- wake_up_process(tsk); > > ??? > > fs/io_uring.c- if (unlikely(ret)) { > fs/io_uring.c- struct task_struct *tsk; > fs/io_uring.c- > fs/io_uring.c- init_task_work(&req->task_work, > io_req_task_cancel); > fs/io_uring.c- tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq); > fs/io_uring.c: task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, 0); > fs/io_uring.c- wake_up_process(tsk); > > yet more magic wakeup. It's not magic, but probably needs a comment... If we fail, that task is exiting. But we know we have our io-wq threads, so we use that as a fallback. Not really expected in the fast path. > fs/io_uring.c- > fs/io_uring.c- init_task_work(&req->task_work, io_req_task_submit); > fs/io_uring.c- percpu_ref_get(&req->ctx->refs); > fs/io_uring.c- > fs/io_uring.c- /* submit ref gets dropped, acquire a new one */ > fs/io_uring.c- refcount_inc(&req->refs); > fs/io_uring.c: ret = io_req_task_work_add(req, true); > fs/io_uring.c- if (unlikely(ret)) { > fs/io_uring.c- struct task_struct *tsk; > fs/io_uring.c- > fs/io_uring.c- /* queue just for cancelation */ > fs/io_uring.c- init_task_work(&req->task_work, > io_req_task_cancel); > fs/io_uring.c- tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq); > fs/io_uring.c: task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, 0); > fs/io_uring.c- wake_up_process(tsk); > > Ditto. Why the heck is this wakeup making any sense? The initial > task_work_add() within io_req_task_work_add() failed already ... Right, but we're using a new task for this. And that task is a kthread that we manage, hence no notification is needed outside of just waking it up. -- Jens Axboe