On 03/08/2018 17:49, Fam Zheng wrote: > void aio_notify_accept(AioContext *ctx) > { > - if (atomic_xchg(&ctx->notified, false)) { > + /* If ctx->notify_me >= 2, another aio_poll() is waiting which may need > the > + * ctx->notifier event to wake up, so don't already clear it just > because "we" are > + * done iterating. */ > + if (atomic_read(&ctx->notify_me) < 2 > + && atomic_xchg(&ctx->notified, false)) { > event_notifier_test_and_clear(&ctx->notifier); > } > }
Ok, it's somewhat reassuring to see from the BZ that the aio_poll in the main thread (in bdrv_set_aio_context) is non-blocking, and that it isn't about nested aio_poll. Then it's not possible to have a busy wait there, because sooner or later the bottom halves will be exhausted and aio_wait will return false (no progress). I'm convinced that the idea in your patch---skipping aio_notify_accept---is correct, it's the ctx->notify_me test that I cannot understand. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's tricky. So we need to improve the comments, the commit message, the way we achieve the fix, or all three. As to the comments and commit message: the BZ is a very good source of information. The comment on the main thread stealing the aio_notify was very clear. As to how to fix it, first of all, we should be clear on the invariants. It would be nice to assert that, if not in_aio_context_home_thread(ctx), blocking must be false. Two concurrent blocking aio_polls will steal aio_notify from one another, so intuitively that assertion should be true, and using AIO_WAIT_WHILE takes care of it. Second, if blocking is false, do we need to call aio_notify_accept at all? If not, and if we combine this with the assertion above, only the I/O thread will call aio_notify_accept, and the main loop will never steal the notification. So that should fix the bug. Thanks, Paolo