From: Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>,
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>, Keith Busch <[email protected]>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Javier Gonzalez <[email protected]>,
Nitesh Shetty <[email protected]>,
Selvakumar S <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] io_uring: add helper for uring_cmd completion in submitter-task
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:55:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+1E3r+Mt7KKeFeYf7WY3CoKwnkXT-jE2EgJSTE6zaAfJX0dzQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:31 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/21 8:01 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> > Completion of a uring_cmd ioctl may involve referencing certain
> > ioctl-specific fields, requiring original subitter context.
> > Introduce 'uring_cmd_complete_in_task' that driver can use for this
> > purpose. The API facilitates task-work infra, while driver gets to
> > implement cmd-specific handling in a callback.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/io_uring.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > include/linux/io_uring.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> > index 583f8fd735d8..ca459ea9cb83 100644
> > --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> > @@ -772,9 +772,12 @@ struct io_kiocb {
> > /* use only after cleaning per-op data, see io_clean_op() */
> > struct io_completion compl;
> > };
> > -
> > - /* opcode allocated if it needs to store data for async defer */
> > - void *async_data;
> > + union {
> > + /* opcode allocated if it needs to store data for async defer */
> > + void *async_data;
> > + /* used for uring-cmd, when driver needs to update in task */
> > + void (*driver_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd);
> > + };
>
> I don't like this at all, it's very possible that we'd need async
> data for passthrough commands as well in certain cases. And what it
> gets to that point, we'll have no other recourse than to un-unionize
> this and pay the cost. It also means we end up with:
>
> > @@ -1716,7 +1719,7 @@ static void io_dismantle_req(struct io_kiocb *req)
> > {
> > io_clean_op(req);
> >
> > - if (req->async_data)
> > + if (io_op_defs[req->opcode].async_size && req->async_data)
> > kfree(req->async_data);
> > if (req->file)
> > io_put_file(req, req->file, (req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE));
>
> which are also very fragile.
I did not want to have it this way....but faced troubles with the more
natural way of doing this. Please see below.
> We already have the task work, just have the driver init and/or call a
> helper to get it run from task context with the callback it desires?
>
> If you look at this:
>
> > @@ -2032,6 +2035,31 @@ static void io_req_task_submit(struct callback_head *cb)
> > __io_req_task_submit(req);
> > }
> >
> > +static void uring_cmd_work(struct callback_head *cb)
> > +{
> > + struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(cb, struct io_kiocb, task_work);
> > + struct io_uring_cmd *cmd = &req->uring_cmd;
> > +
> > + req->driver_cb(cmd);
> > +}
> > +int uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
> > + void (*driver_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *))
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(ioucmd, struct io_kiocb, uring_cmd);
> > +
> > + req->driver_cb = driver_cb;
> > + req->task_work.func = uring_cmd_work;
> > + ret = io_req_task_work_add(req);
> > + if (unlikely(ret)) {
> > + req->result = -ECANCELED;
> > + percpu_ref_get(&req->ctx->refs);
> > + io_req_task_work_add_fallback(req, io_req_task_cancel);
> > + }
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(uring_cmd_complete_in_task);
>
> Then you're basically jumping through hoops to get that callback.
> Why don't you just have:
>
> io_uring_schedule_task(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, task_work_func_t cb)
> {
> struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(cmd, struct io_kiocb, uring_cmd);
> int ret;
>
> req->task_work.func = cb;
> ret = io_req_task_work_add(req);
> if (unlikely(ret)) {
> req->result = -ECANCELED;
> io_req_task_work_add_fallback(req, io_req_task_cancel);
> }
> return ret;
> }
>
> ?
I started with that, but the problem was implementing the driver callback .
The callbacks receive only one argument which is "struct callback_head
*", and the driver needs to extract "io_uring_cmd *" out of it.
This part -
+static void uring_cmd_work(struct callback_head *cb)
+{
+ struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(cb, struct io_kiocb, task_work);
+ struct io_uring_cmd *cmd = &req->uring_cmd;
If the callback has to move to the driver (nvme), the driver needs
visibility to "struct io_kiocb" which is uring-local.
Do you see a better way to handle this?
I also thought about keeping the driver_cb inside the unused part of
uring_cmd (instead of union with req->async_data), but it had two
problems - 1. uring needs to peek inside driver-part of uring_cmd to
invoke this callback
2. losing precious space (I am using that space to avoid per-command
dynamic-allocation in driver)
> Also, please export any symbol with _GPL. I don't want non-GPL drivers
> using this infrastructure.
Got it.
--
Kanchan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-18 5:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20210316140229epcas5p23d68a4c9694bbf7759b5901115a4309b@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2021-03-16 14:01 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Async nvme passthrough over io_uring Kanchan Joshi
[not found] ` <CGME20210316140233epcas5p372405e7cb302c61dba5e1094fa796513@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2021-03-16 14:01 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] io_uring: add helper for uring_cmd completion in submitter-task Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-16 15:43 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-18 1:57 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-18 5:25 ` Kanchan Joshi [this message]
2021-03-18 5:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-03-18 6:14 ` Kanchan Joshi
[not found] ` <CGME20210316140236epcas5p4de087ee51a862402146fbbc621d4d4c6@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
2021-03-16 14:01 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] nvme: keep nvme_command instead of pointer to it Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-16 17:16 ` Keith Busch
2021-03-17 9:38 ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-17 14:17 ` Keith Busch
[not found] ` <CGME20210316140240epcas5p3e71bfe2afecd728c5af60056f21cc9b7@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2021-03-16 14:01 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] nvme: wire up support for async passthrough Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-17 8:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-03-17 16:49 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-17 16:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-03-17 17:21 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-17 18:59 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-18 5:54 ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-17 16:45 ` Keith Busch
2021-03-17 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-03-16 15:51 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Async nvme passthrough over io_uring Jens Axboe
2021-03-17 9:31 ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-03-18 1:58 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-18 7:47 ` Kanchan Joshi
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=CA+1E3r+Mt7KKeFeYf7WY3CoKwnkXT-jE2EgJSTE6zaAfJX0dzQ@mail.gmail.com \
[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