From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: export cq overflow status to userspace
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:39:59 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
hi,
> On 7/7/20 11:29 PM, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
>> I modify above test program a bit:
>> #include <errno.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> #include <fcntl.h>
>> #include <assert.h>
>>
>> #include "liburing.h"
>>
>> static void test_cq_overflow(struct io_uring *ring)
>> {
>> struct io_uring_cqe *cqe;
>> struct io_uring_sqe *sqe;
>> int issued = 0;
>> int ret = 0;
>> int i;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < 33; i++) {
>> sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(ring);
>> if (!sqe) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "get sqe failed\n");
>> break;;
>> }
>> ret = io_uring_submit(ring);
>> if (ret <= 0) {
>> if (ret != -EBUSY)
>> fprintf(stderr, "sqe submit failed: %d\n", ret);
>> break;
>> }
>> issued++;
>> }
>>
>> printf("issued requests: %d\n", issued);
>>
>> while (issued) {
>> ret = io_uring_peek_cqe(ring, &cqe);
>> if (ret) {
>> if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "peek completion failed: %s\n",
>> strerror(ret));
>> break;
>> }
>> printf("left requets: %d %d\n", issued, IO_URING_READ_ONCE(*ring->sq.kflags));
>> continue;
>> }
>> io_uring_cqe_seen(ring, cqe);
>> issued--;
>> printf("left requets: %d\n", issued);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> int ret;
>> struct io_uring ring;
>>
>> ret = io_uring_queue_init(16, &ring, 0);
>> if (ret) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "ring setup failed: %d\n", ret);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> test_cq_overflow(&ring);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Though with your patches applied, we still can not peek the last cqe.
>> This test program will only issue 33 sqes, so it won't get EBUSY error.
>
> How about we make this even simpler, then - make the
> IORING_SQ_CQ_OVERFLOW actually track the state, rather than when we fail
> on submission. The liburing change would be the same, the kernel side
> would then look like the below.
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 4c9a494c9f9f..01981926cdf4 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -1342,6 +1342,7 @@ static bool io_cqring_overflow_flush(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, bool force)
> if (cqe) {
> clear_bit(0, &ctx->sq_check_overflow);
> clear_bit(0, &ctx->cq_check_overflow);
> + ctx->rings->sq_flags &= ~IORING_SQ_CQ_OVERFLOW;
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->completion_lock, flags);
> io_cqring_ev_posted(ctx);
> @@ -1379,6 +1380,7 @@ static void __io_cqring_fill_event(struct io_kiocb *req, long res, long cflags)
> if (list_empty(&ctx->cq_overflow_list)) {
> set_bit(0, &ctx->sq_check_overflow);
> set_bit(0, &ctx->cq_check_overflow);
> + ctx->rings->sq_flags |= IORING_SQ_CQ_OVERFLOW;
> }
> req->flags |= REQ_F_OVERFLOW;
> refcount_inc(&req->refs);
> @@ -6375,9 +6377,9 @@ static int io_sq_thread(void *data)
> }
>
> /* Tell userspace we may need a wakeup call */
> + spin_lock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> ctx->rings->sq_flags |= IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP;
> - /* make sure to read SQ tail after writing flags */
> - smp_mb();
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
>
> to_submit = io_sqring_entries(ctx);
> if (!to_submit || ret == -EBUSY) {
> @@ -6400,7 +6402,9 @@ static int io_sq_thread(void *data)
> }
> finish_wait(&ctx->sqo_wait, &wait);
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> ctx->rings->sq_flags &= ~IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> }
>
> mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> index 8d033961cb78..91953b543125 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ struct io_sqring_offsets {
> * sq_ring->flags
> */
> #define IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP (1U << 0) /* needs io_uring_enter wakeup */
> +#define IORING_SQ_CQ_OVERFLOW (1U << 1) /* app needs to enter kernel */
>
> struct io_cqring_offsets {
> __u32 head;
>
Looks good, I think it'll work now.
I'll test and send patches soon, thanks.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-08 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-07 13:24 [PATCH] io_uring: export cq overflow status to userspace Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-07 14:28 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 16:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-07 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-07 16:36 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-07 17:23 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-08 3:25 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-08 3:46 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-08 5:29 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-08 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-08 15:39 ` Xiaoguang Wang [this message]
2020-07-08 15:41 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-08 16:51 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-08 21:33 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-09 0:52 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-07 16:29 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-07-07 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
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 \
--in-reply-to=54ce9903-4016-5b30-2fe9-397da9161bfe@linux.alibaba.com \
[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