public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>,
	Keith Busch <[email protected]>, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected],
	Javier Gonzalez <[email protected]>,
	Nitesh Shetty <[email protected]>,
	Selvakumar S <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Asynchronous passthrough ioctl
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:11:25 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+1E3r+e8FgiHVA4OB_igUBboJH9iMrh+Fm1E5RoEs+o1ryCwg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 8:03 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/21 6:42 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:54 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/28/21 10:13 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:08 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/28/21 5:04 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:32 PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 27/01/2021 15:42, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 27/01/2021 15:00, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This RFC patchset adds asynchronous ioctl capability for NVMe devices.
> >>>>>>>> Purpose of RFC is to get the feedback and optimize the path.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At the uppermost io-uring layer, a new opcode IORING_OP_IOCTL_PT is
> >>>>>>>> presented to user-space applications. Like regular-ioctl, it takes
> >>>>>>>> ioctl opcode and an optional argument (ioctl-specific input/output
> >>>>>>>> parameter). Unlike regular-ioctl, it is made to skip the block-layer
> >>>>>>>> and reach directly to the underlying driver (nvme in the case of this
> >>>>>>>> patchset). This path between io-uring and nvme is via a newly
> >>>>>>>> introduced block-device operation "async_ioctl". This operation
> >>>>>>>> expects io-uring to supply a callback function which can be used to
> >>>>>>>> report completion at later stage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For a regular ioctl, NVMe driver submits the command to the device and
> >>>>>>>> the submitter (task) is made to wait until completion arrives. For
> >>>>>>>> async-ioctl, completion is decoupled from submission. Submitter goes
> >>>>>>>> back to its business without waiting for nvme-completion. When
> >>>>>>>> nvme-completion arrives, it informs io-uring via the registered
> >>>>>>>> completion-handler. But some ioctls may require updating certain
> >>>>>>>> ioctl-specific fields which can be accessed only in context of the
> >>>>>>>> submitter task. For that reason, NVMe driver uses task-work infra for
> >>>>>>>> that ioctl-specific update. Since task-work is not exported, it cannot
> >>>>>>>> be referenced when nvme is compiled as a module. Therefore, one of the
> >>>>>>>> patch exports task-work API.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here goes example of usage (pseudo-code).
> >>>>>>>> Actual nvme-cli source, modified to issue all ioctls via this opcode
> >>>>>>>> is present at-
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/joshkan/nvme-cli/commit/a008a733f24ab5593e7874cfbc69ee04e88068c5
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> see https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=io_uring-fops
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Looks like good time to bring that branch/discussion back
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a bit more context:
> >>>>>> https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/270
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, it looked good. It seems key differences (compared to
> >>>>> uring-patch that I posted) are -
> >>>>> 1. using file-operation instead of block-dev operation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right, it's meant to span wider than just block devices.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2. repurpose the sqe memory for ioctl-cmd. If an application does
> >>>>> ioctl with <=40 bytes of cmd, it does not have to allocate ioctl-cmd.
> >>>>> That's nifty. We still need to support passing larger-cmd (e.g.
> >>>>> nvme-passthru ioctl takes 72 bytes) but that shouldn't get too
> >>>>> difficult I suppose.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's actually 48 bytes in the as-posted version, and I've bumped it to
> >>>> 56 bytes in the latest branch. So not quite enough for everything,
> >>>> nothing ever will be, but should work for a lot of cases without
> >>>> requiring per-command allocations just for the actual command.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. But if I got it right, you are open to support both in-the-sqe
> >>> command (<= 56 bytes) and out-of-sqe command (> 56 bytes) with this
> >>> interface.
> >>> Driver processing the ioctl can fetch the cmd from user-space in one
> >>> case (as it does now), and skips in another.
> >>
> >> Your out-of-seq command would be none of io_urings business, outside of
> >> the fact that we'd need to ensure it's stable if we need to postpone
> >> it. So yes, that would be fine, it just means your actual command is
> >> passed in as a pointer, and you would be responsible for copying it
> >> in for execution
> >>
> >> We're going to need something to handle postponing, and something
> >> for ensuring that eg cancelations free the allocated memory.
> >
> > I have few doubts about allocation/postponing. Are you referring to
> > uring allocating memory for this case, similar to the way
> > "req->async_data" is managed for few other opcodes?
> > Or can it (i.e. larger cmd) remain a user-space pointer, and the
> > underlying driver fetches the command in.
> > If submission context changes (for sqo/io-wq case), uring seemed to
> > apply context-grabbing techniques to make that work.
>
> There are two concerns here:
>
> 1) We need more space than the 48 bytes, which means we need to allocate
>    the command or part of the command when get the sqe, and of course
>    free that when the command is done.
>
> 2) When io_uring_enter() returns and has consumed N commands, the state
>    for those commands must be stable. Hence if you're passing in a
>    pointer to a struct, that struct will have been read and store
>    safely. This prevents things like on-stack structures from being an
>    issue.
>
> ->async_data deals with #2 here, it's used when a command needs to store
> data because we're switching to an async context to execute the command
> (or the command is otherwise deferred, eg links and such). You can
> always rely on the context being sane, it's either the task itself or
> equivalent.

Thanks for sorting this out.

> >>>>> And for some ioctls, driver may still need to use task-work to update
> >>>>> the user-space pointers (embedded in uring/ioctl cmd) during
> >>>>> completion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Jens - will it be fine if I start looking at plumbing nvme-part of
> >>>>> this series on top of your work?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, go ahead. Just beware that things are still changing, so you might
> >>>> have to adapt it a few times. It's still early days, but I do think
> >>>> that's the way forward in providing controlled access to what is
> >>>> basically async ioctls.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds good, I will start with the latest branch that you posted. Thanks.
> >>
> >> It's io_uring-fops.v2 for now, use that one.
> >
> > Moved to v3 now.
> > nvme_user_io is 48 bytes, while nvme passthrough requires 72 or 80
> > bytes (passthru with 64 bit result).
> > The block_uring_cmd has 32 bytes of available space. If NVMe defines
> > its own "nvme_uring_cmd" (which can be used for nvme char interface)
> > that will buy some more space, but still won't be enough for passthru
> > command.
> >
> > So I am looking at adding support for large-cmd in uring. And felt the
> > need to clear those doubts I mentioned above.
>
> The simple solution is to just keep the command type the same on the
> NVMe side, and just pass in a pointer to it. Then API could then be
> nr_commands and **commands, for example.
>
> But I think we're getting to the point where it'd be easier to just
> discuss actual code. So if you rebase on top of the v3 code, then send
> out those patches and we can discuss the most convenient API to present
> for nvme passthrough and friends. Does that work?

Yes, perfect. I will go about that.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-23  4:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20210127150134epcas5p251fc1de3ff3581dd4c68b3fbe0b9dd91@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2021-01-27 15:00 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Asynchronous passthrough ioctl Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20210127150140epcas5p32832cc0c0db953db199eb9dd326f2d4c@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2021-01-27 15:00     ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] block: introduce async ioctl operation Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20210127150144epcas5p29ccb35d7e7170aba7947b5ee16fd2db0@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2021-01-27 15:00     ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] kernel: export task_work_add Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20210127150149epcas5p4fa8edd47712f28ccdd9bac5139fc6e61@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
2021-01-27 15:00     ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] nvme: add async ioctl support Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20210127150156epcas5p26cdf368e4ff6bffb132fa1c7f9430653@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2021-01-27 15:00     ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] io_uring: add async passthrough " Kanchan Joshi
2021-01-27 15:42   ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Asynchronous passthrough ioctl Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-27 15:53     ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-28 12:04       ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-01-28 14:38         ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-28 17:13           ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-01-28 17:24             ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-22 13:42               ` Kanchan Joshi
2021-02-22 14:33                 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-23  4:41                   ` Kanchan Joshi [this message]
2021-01-28 14:50         ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-28 17:25           ` 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+e8FgiHVA4OB_igUBboJH9iMrh+Fm1E5RoEs+o1ryCwg@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] \
    [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