From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BC4C433E1 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBE42071A for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="S823tc4C" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727945AbgHVSCG (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:02:06 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:33173 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728120AbgHVSCF (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:02:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1598119323; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=W6lgVmh2wlooy/jOjkjYLUIvHE4cxHds3iJ0UWbp83U=; b=S823tc4CFNRquckVaci8+YgjtDKB1n5/hutbTvxfimlaYAiuxDZOwjgbjcSv1danDYERx9 rEMqSd+UGBdVZz2Osd+35bVxzKffBYAj9cOSXN5SfaVIl8/DkWeN9Rb+Z4pd6WMm7qJoU/ DrDS3hFyZrDWh/NfJUr4uHeUiLOPhUM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-313-EsJCpst0MDqaXtzRlbEOFw-1; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:02:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EsJCpst0MDqaXtzRlbEOFw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10FE51876562; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com [10.66.12.102]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD537AEFE; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 02:14:46 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: Jens Axboe Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] fsstress: add IO_URING read and write operations Message-ID: <20200822181445.GS2937@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jens Axboe , fstests@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com References: <20200809063040.15521-1-zlang@redhat.com> <20200809063040.15521-2-zlang@redhat.com> <01c7353f-338b-99cd-d7d1-fe92b0badd84@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c7353f-338b-99cd-d7d1-fe92b0badd84@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Sender: io-uring-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 11:51:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/9/20 12:30 AM, Zorro Lang wrote: > > @@ -2170,6 +2189,108 @@ do_aio_rw(int opno, long r, int flags) > > } > > #endif > > > > +#ifdef URING > > +void > > +do_uring_rw(int opno, long r, int flags) > > +{ > > + char *buf; > > + int e; > > + pathname_t f; > > + int fd; > > + size_t len; > > + int64_t lr; > > + off64_t off; > > + struct stat64 stb; > > + int v; > > + char st[1024]; > > + struct io_uring_sqe *sqe; > > + struct io_uring_cqe *cqe; > > + struct iovec iovec; > > + int iswrite = (flags & (O_WRONLY | O_RDWR)) ? 1 : 0; > > + > > + init_pathname(&f); > > + if (!get_fname(FT_REGFILE, r, &f, NULL, NULL, &v)) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - no filename\n", procid, opno); > > + goto uring_out3; > > + } > > + fd = open_path(&f, flags); > > + e = fd < 0 ? errno : 0; > > + check_cwd(); > > + if (fd < 0) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - open %s failed %d\n", > > + procid, opno, f.path, e); > > + goto uring_out3; > > + } > > + if (fstat64(fd, &stb) < 0) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - fstat64 %s failed %d\n", > > + procid, opno, f.path, errno); > > + goto uring_out2; > > + } > > + inode_info(st, sizeof(st), &stb, v); > > + if (!iswrite && stb.st_size == 0) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - %s%s zero size\n", procid, opno, > > + f.path, st); > > + goto uring_out2; > > + } > > + sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(&ring); > > + if (!sqe) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - io_uring_get_sqe failed\n", > > + procid, opno); > > + goto uring_out2; > > + } > > + lr = ((int64_t)random() << 32) + random(); > > + len = (random() % FILELEN_MAX) + 1; > > + buf = malloc(len); > > + if (!buf) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: do_uring_rw - malloc failed\n", > > + procid, opno); > > + goto uring_out2; > > + } > > + iovec.iov_base = buf; > > + iovec.iov_len = len; > > + if (iswrite) { > > + off = (off64_t)(lr % MIN(stb.st_size + (1024 * 1024), MAXFSIZE)); > > + off %= maxfsize; > > + memset(buf, nameseq & 0xff, len); > > + io_uring_prep_writev(sqe, fd, &iovec, 1, off); > > + } else { > > + off = (off64_t)(lr % stb.st_size); > > + io_uring_prep_readv(sqe, fd, &iovec, 1, off); > > + } > > + > > + if ((e = io_uring_submit(&ring)) != 1) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: %s - io_uring_submit failed %d\n", procid, opno, > > + iswrite ? "uring_write" : "uring_read", e); > > + goto uring_out1; > > + } > > + if ((e = io_uring_wait_cqe(&ring, &cqe)) < 0) { > > + if (v) > > + printf("%d/%d: %s - io_uring_wait_cqe failed %d\n", procid, opno, > > + iswrite ? "uring_write" : "uring_read", e); > > + goto uring_out1; > > + } > > You could use io_uring_submit_and_wait() here, that'll save a system > call for sync IO. Same comment goes for 4/4. Hi Jens, Sorry I think I haven't learned about io_uring enough, why the io_uring_submit_and_wait can save a system call? Is it same with io_uring_submit(), except a wait_nr ? The io_uring_wait_cqe() and io_uring_cqe_seen() are still needed, right? Thanks, Zorro > > Apart from that, looks pretty straight forward to me. > > -- > Jens Axboe >