public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Ming Lei <[email protected]>, Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: Pass whole sqe to commands
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:12:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 4/14/23 03:12, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:47:56AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> Hello Ming,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:56:49AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:57:05AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>>>> Currently uring CMD operation relies on having large SQEs, but future
>>>> operations might want to use normal SQE.
>>>>
>>>> The io_uring_cmd currently only saves the payload (cmd) part of the SQE,
>>>> but, for commands that use normal SQE size, it might be necessary to
>>>> access the initial SQE fields outside of the payload/cmd block.  So,
>>>> saves the whole SQE other than just the pdu.
>>>>
>>>> This changes slighlty how the io_uring_cmd works, since the cmd
>>>> structures and callbacks are not opaque to io_uring anymore. I.e, the
>>>> callbacks can look at the SQE entries, not only, in the cmd structure.
>>>>
>>>> The main advantage is that we don't need to create custom structures for
>>>> simple commands.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> index 2e4c483075d3..9648134ccae1 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> @@ -63,14 +63,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_done);
>>>>   int io_uring_cmd_prep_async(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_uring_cmd);
>>>> -	size_t cmd_size;
>>>> +	size_t size = sizeof(struct io_uring_sqe);
>>>>   
>>>>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(uring_cmd_pdu_size(0) != 16);
>>>>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(uring_cmd_pdu_size(1) != 80);
>>>>   
>>>> -	cmd_size = uring_cmd_pdu_size(req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQE128);
>>>> +	if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQE128)
>>>> +		size <<= 1;
>>>>   
>>>> -	memcpy(req->async_data, ioucmd->cmd, cmd_size);
>>>> +	memcpy(req->async_data, ioucmd->sqe, size);
>>>
>>> The copy will make some fields of sqe become READ TWICE, and driver may see
>>> different sqe field value compared with the one observed in io_init_req().
>>
>> This copy only happens if the operation goes to the async path
>> (calling io_uring_cmd_prep_async()).  This only happens if
>> f_op->uring_cmd() returns -EAGAIN.
>>
>>            ret = file->f_op->uring_cmd(ioucmd, issue_flags);
>>            if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>>                    if (!req_has_async_data(req)) {
>>                            if (io_alloc_async_data(req))
>>                                    return -ENOMEM;
>>                            io_uring_cmd_prep_async(req);
>>                    }
>>                    return -EAGAIN;
>>            }
>>
>> Are you saying that after this copy, the operation is still reading from
>> sqe instead of req->async_data?
> 
> I meant that the 2nd read is on the sqe copy(req->aync_data), but same
> fields can become different between the two READs(first is done on original
> SQE during io_init_req(), and second is done on sqe copy in driver).
> 
> Will this kind of inconsistency cause trouble for driver? Cause READ
> TWICE becomes possible with this patch.

Right it might happen, and I was keeping that in mind, but it's not
specific to this patch. It won't reload core io_uring bits, and all
fields cmds use already have this problem.

Unless there is a better option, the direction we'll be moving in is
adding a preparation step that should read and stash parts of SQE
it cares about, which should also make full SQE copy not
needed / optional.

>> If you have an example of the two copes flow, that would be great.
> 
> Not any example yet, but also not see any access on cmd->sqe(except for cmd_op)
> in your patches too.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-14 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-06 14:43 [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] net: wire up support for file_operations->uring_cmd() Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] net: add uring_cmd callback to UDP Breno Leitao
2023-04-11 12:54   ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-04-06 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] net: add uring_cmd callback to TCP Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 14:43 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] net: add uring_cmd callback to raw "protocol" Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 15:34 ` [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-06 15:59   ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 18:16     ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-07  2:46       ` David Ahern
2023-04-11 12:00         ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-11 14:36           ` David Ahern
2023-04-11 14:41             ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-11 14:51               ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-11 14:54                 ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-11 15:00                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-11 15:06                     ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-11 15:24                       ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-11 15:28                         ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-12 13:53                           ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-12 14:28                             ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-13  0:02                               ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-13 14:24                                 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-13 14:45                                   ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-04-13 14:57                                   ` David Laight
2023-04-18 13:23                                   ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-18 19:41                                     ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-20 14:43                                       ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-20 16:48                                         ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-04-11 15:10               ` David Ahern
2023-04-11 15:17                 ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-11 15:27                   ` David Ahern
2023-04-11 15:29                     ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-12  7:39                     ` David Laight
2023-04-06 16:41 ` Keith Busch
2023-04-06 16:49   ` Jens Axboe
2023-04-06 16:58   ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-06 16:57 ` [PATCH RFC] io_uring: Pass whole sqe to commands Breno Leitao
2023-04-07 18:51   ` Keith Busch
2023-04-11 12:22     ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-11 12:39       ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-04-13  2:56   ` Ming Lei
2023-04-13 16:47     ` Breno Leitao
2023-04-14  2:12       ` Ming Lei
2023-04-14 13:12         ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2023-04-14 13:59           ` Ming Lei
2023-04-14 14:56             ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-04-16  9:51               ` Ming Lei

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 \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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