lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] aio: Fix return code of io_submit() (RFC)
On 2014-10-03 12:22, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> 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.
>
> There are lots of instances in the kernel where out of memory is potentially
> exposed to the user. If we're failing a memory allocation that is well under
> 1KB, the system is probably completely hosed.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not sure if using a mempool is appropriate for allocations that are
> driven by userland code. At least with an ENOMEM error, an application
> could free up some of the memory it allocated and possibly recover the
> system.

Since fio just hit this, it has nothing it can potentially free to make
progress possible. There was no pending IO, so all it can do is quit.
But I do agree that if a small alloc like that fails, then we are
probably pretty darn screwed anyway, and it doesn't matter that much
what we do. My main concern was a potential change in the ABI, but since
we could already return -ENOMEM from other cases, that is probably a
moot point.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-03 21:01    [W:0.064 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site