From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2 0/2] io_uring: handle short reads internally
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:29:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 8/17/20 2:25 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
>> Since we've had a few cases of applications not dealing with this
>> appopriately, I believe the safest course of action is to ensure that
>> we don't return short reads when we really don't have to.
>>
>> The first patch is just a prep patch that retains iov_iter state over
>> retries, while the second one actually enables just doing retries if
>> we get a short read back.
>>
>> This passes all my testing, both liburing regression tests but also
>> tests that explicitly trigger internal short reads and hence retry
>> based on current state. No short reads are passed back to the
>> application.
>
> Thanks! I was going to ask about exactly that :-)
>
> It wasn't clear why returning short reads were justified by resulting
> in better performance... As it means the application needs to do
> a lot more work and syscalls.
It mostly boils down to figuring out a good way to do it. With the
task_work based retry, the async buffered reads, we're almost there and
the prep patch adds the last remaining bits to retain the iov_iter state
across issues.
> Will this be backported?
I can, but not really in an efficient manner. It depends on the async
buffered work to make progress, and the task_work handling retry. The
latter means it's 5.7+, while the former is only in 5.9+...
We can make it work for earlier kernels by just using the thread offload
for that, and that may be worth doing. That would enable it in
5.7-stable and 5.8-stable. For that, you just need these two patches.
Patch 1 would work as-is, while patch 2 would need a small bit of
massaging since io_read() doesn't have the retry parts.
I'll give it a whirl just out of curiosity, then we can debate it after
that.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-18 3:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-14 19:54 [PATCHSET v2 0/2] io_uring: handle short reads internally Jens Axboe
2020-08-14 19:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: retain iov_iter state over io_read/io_write calls Jens Axboe
2020-08-14 19:54 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: internally retry short reads Jens Axboe
2020-08-17 9:25 ` [PATCHSET v2 0/2] io_uring: handle short reads internally Stefan Metzmacher
2020-08-18 3:29 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-08-18 4:12 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-18 4:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-18 7:40 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2020-08-18 14:44 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-18 14:49 ` Anoop C S
2020-08-18 14:53 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-18 15:23 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2020-08-19 8:31 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2020-08-19 12:48 ` 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 \
[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