From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A81DF157A61; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:51:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.45 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713225093; cv=none; b=WE/+Q4wNhBrufLKp5rOwJEoJiaw+1GGQjIkUzKMNisEX7PN1lfp93adFPlwqg6nnp5Dx9Iu988oN8L1/u1XVKOeAjlwRV8wGh/s4owkLuoeB2qc3eqiRYS5zlLO9WDmkwZPuC/5O9Lv2YZ7EKhwqaahyVvf5d3ymhzvmNIWZzYg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713225093; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tf2dTRkLRroBbVsP+mPp/AxwHunNSSD6ZCnEcdtGNwA=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=QXOtgUfoL7Z0SlV/yJ/LzQTZ25JFyn2pipFwe0gjYVs2u2WvMntz0wK4ulTXIJWmlrJRPO37HxR7u2jDQQCVGM9J5b/NMVKmA7ESvjf6dIphRhT8ud51LDmKhfKlg9hgMf+Ond/3s8dbL8ldGXDldawhcnMxJEjJaAhPYlHKg9A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=epR8YVQ1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.45 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="epR8YVQ1" Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-346b09d474dso3633560f8f.2; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:51:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713225090; x=1713829890; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tf2dTRkLRroBbVsP+mPp/AxwHunNSSD6ZCnEcdtGNwA=; b=epR8YVQ1ax6aRYMwZFd/5X5TOMZS9eNh8/umnrYRgfTxrU9aV1+QMoUa7IHa8bcrly GhFdyAzCEaQplXiRHrTjS0vsJTvtzWimU4uGQDRP4df/0ub3KUzEgpJPacAB+ieW1nez wykOAgcULSqQ2F7+EFFVnjGiiyT2KqCO9yoAKhqJYMWw5VoAQZh0TwG3a3Cs5RIZndm5 Tho3AP8rZWTq2o1yJNipBstlL27+BXZkg9GF6Dr2ixWAItgkzy+LMPrJ0lbVeIzgo3Gc ElmFXxkW9oSs5mWPtZ93HJudPybT4KL6/CjYFtQeLuYL9EHInMz8d0PBUmsPU6YOIZQR GyLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713225090; x=1713829890; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tf2dTRkLRroBbVsP+mPp/AxwHunNSSD6ZCnEcdtGNwA=; b=Wd6utxXYRaSldr/4aHYhmqFxo1V1JTC4WJJqWbplYypV+934PGorKF8kzVivi0DjSU JoYFq0QWtc5pecs4hMISWrSfaJ9Vanvw8Wwd+2GwPvgQMp8yrQc1/XuLTNS1kfT552pF mY4xLf6kQ0jiPF55U13nxMpmySXOXwC3GgNSX/4C8HIOziOlJv7GY3Pj8BcrNcynB9Xx 1WLS2lTkxCiNZxwCjvedEl+jIWUP2HcXJiG5f+JW6HKZ2TwpoqbqWtrybt68ZFWQGeTA U8RBBbUJi9u0m4NKn1qr/a0wSZydur6dhiI8hT7YcmYoWwW4fVEWFkILclfPXaigaZRC 5/Fg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWhdHtEIg5VkUSeE5rM7X7WlQDgUQbAmtngYsjI0AOf9YtvjtbOWjzwPCcEzCdmh0V7o9xQ5pcpgwVtcIaJUuHDmXpGmrMjVa8MlccO X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyFqs7vtZPsu+lgFt/N/IdOlUDmAKOvgYzWk4QEbjVRVCQ7UW5h cP2RC1uop5QtF8QHra11cAF2cEz1gVUQmtezpBsYoMIpDKpsPYyon1uGn+Lr2bg1ji/puy2dyNH J54kv8+m076VVS3qdO58FfaKt3YE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG5YTDN8mtwBYvsftN8rfGbDypplBC1s0CyUFZ0C8++0KhjXn6gra9yYtwbZ7FLEZWrK5oh+3MdPal66c9CVG8= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a8a:0:b0:348:c2c7:9f13 with SMTP id o10-20020a5d4a8a000000b00348c2c79f13mr395561wrq.65.1713225089272; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:51:28 -0700 From: Oliver Crumrine In-Reply-To: <0eca7b8a-5ea5-4c9a-b6a7-6920b93d27b1@gmail.com> References: <6850f08d-0e89-4eb3-bbfb-bdcc5d4e1b78@gmail.com> <09f1a8e9-d9ad-4b40-885b-21e1c2ba147b@gmail.com> <8666ff9d-1cb6-4e92-a1b3-4f3b1fb0ac79@gmail.com> <0eca7b8a-5ea5-4c9a-b6a7-6920b93d27b1@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:51:28 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] io_uring: Add REQ_F_CQE_SKIP support for io_uring zerocopy To: Pavel Begunkov , Oliver Crumrine , axboe@kernel.dk Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 4/11/24 01:52, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > > Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >> On 4/9/24 02:33, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > >>> Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >>>> On 4/7/24 20:14, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > >>>>> Oliver Crumrine wrote: > >>>>>> Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >>>>>>> On 4/5/24 21:04, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > >>>>>>>> Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 4/4/24 23:17, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> In his patch to enable zerocopy networking for io_uring, Pavel Begunkov > >>>>>>>>>> specifically disabled REQ_F_CQE_SKIP, as (at least from my > >>>>>>>>>> understanding) the userspace program wouldn't receive the > >>>>>>>>>> IORING_CQE_F_MORE flag in the result value. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No. IORING_CQE_F_MORE means there will be another CQE from this > >>>>>>>>> request, so a single CQE without IORING_CQE_F_MORE is trivially > >>>>>>>>> fine. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The problem is the semantics, because by suppressing the first > >>>>>>>>> CQE you're loosing the result value. You might rely on WAITALL > >>>>>>>> That's already happening with io_send. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right, and it's still annoying and hard to use > >>>>>> Another solution might be something where there is a counter that stores > >>>>>> how many CQEs with REQ_F_CQE_SKIP have been processed. Before exiting, > >>>>>> userspace could call a function like: io_wait_completions(int completions) > >>>>>> which would wait until everything is done, and then userspace could peek > >>>>>> the completion ring. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> as other sends and "fail" (in terms of io_uring) the request > >>>>>>>>> in case of a partial send posting 2 CQEs, but that's not a great > >>>>>>>>> way and it's getting userspace complicated pretty easily. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In short, it was left out for later because there is a > >>>>>>>>> better way to implement it, but it should be done carefully > >>>>>>>> Maybe we could put the return values in the notifs? That would be a > >>>>>>>> discrepancy between io_send and io_send_zc, though. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes. And yes, having a custom flavour is not good. It'd only > >>>>>>> be well usable if apart from returning the actual result > >>>>>>> it also guarantees there will be one and only one CQE, then > >>>>>>> the userspace doesn't have to do the dancing with counting > >>>>>>> and checking F_MORE. In fact, I outlined before how a generic > >>>>>>> solution may looks like: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/824 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The only interesting part, IMHO, is to be able to merge the > >>>>>>> main completion with its notification. Below is an old stash > >>>>>>> rebased onto for-6.10. The only thing missing is relinking, > >>>>>>> but maybe we don't even care about it. I need to cover it > >>>>>>> well with tests. > >>>>>> The patch looks pretty good. The only potential issue is that you store > >>>>>> the res of the normal CQE into the notif CQE. This overwrites the > >>>>>> IORING_CQE_F_NOTIF with IORING_CQE_F_MORE. This means that the notif would > >>>>>> indicate to userspace that there will be another CQE, of which there > >>>>>> won't. > >>>>> I was wrong here; Mixed up flags and result value. > >>>> > >>>> Right, it's fine. And it's synchronised by the ubuf refcounting, > >>>> though it might get more complicated if I'd try out some counting > >>>> optimisations. > >>>> > >>>> FWIW, it shouldn't give any performance wins. The heavy stuff is > >>>> notifications waking the task, which is still there. I can even > >>>> imagine that having separate CQEs might be more flexible and would > >>>> allow more efficient CQ batching. > >>> I've actaully been working on this issue for a little while now. My current > >>> idea is that an id is put into the optval section of the SQE, and then it > >>> can be used to tag that req with a certain group. When a req has a flag > >>> set on it, it can request for all of group's notifs to be "flushed" in one > >>> notif that encompasses that entire group. If the id is zero, it won't be > >>> associated with a group and will generate a notif. LMK if you see anything > >>> in here that could overcomplicate userspace. I think it's pretty simple, > >>> but you've had a crack at this before so I'd like to hear your opinion. > >> > >> You can take a look at early versions of the IORING_OP_SEND_ZC, e.g. > >> patchset v1, probably even later ones. It was basically doing what > >> you've described with minor uapi changes, like you had to declare groups > >> (slots) in advance, i.e. register them. > > My idea is that insead of allocating slots before making requests, "slots" > > will be allocated as the group ids show up. Instead of an array of slots, a > > linked list can be used so things can be kmalloc'ed on the fly to make > > the uapi simpler. > >> > >> More flexible and so performant in some circumstances, but the overall > >> feedback from people trying it is that it's complicated. The user should > >> allocate group ids, track bound requests / buffers, do other management. > >> The next question is how the user should decide what bind to what. There > >> is some nastiness in using the same group for multiple sockets, and then > > Then maybe we find a way to prevent multiple sockets on one group. > > You don't have to explicitly prevent it unless there are other reasons, > it's just not given a real app would be able to use it this way. > > >> what's the cut line to flush the previous notif? I probably forgot a > > I'd make it the max for a u32 -- I'm (probably) going to use an atomic_t > > to store the counter of how many reqs have been completed, so a u32 max > > would make sense. > > To be clear, the question raised is entirely for userspace to decide > if we're talking about the design when the user has to flush a group > notificaiton via flag or so. Atomics or not is a performance side, > that's separate. > > >> couple more complaints. > >> > >> TL;DR; > >> > >> The performance is a bit of a longer story, problems are mostly coming > >> from the async nature of io_uring, and it'd be nice to solve at least a > >> part of it generically, not only for sendzc. The expensive stuff is > >> waking up the task, it's not unique to notifications, recv will trigger > >> it with polling as well as other opcodes. Then the key is completion > >> batching. > > Maybe the interface is made for sendzc first, and people could test it > > there. Then if it is considered beneficial to other places, it could be > > implemented there. > >> > >> What's interesting, take for example some tx only toy benchmark with > >> DEFER_TASKRUN (recommended to use in any case). If you always wait for > >> sends without notifications and add eventual *_get_events(), that would > >> completely avoid the wake up overhead if there are enough buffers, > >> and if it's not it can 1:1 replace tx polling. > > Seems like an interesting way to eliminate waiting overhead. > >> > >> Try groups, see if numbers are good. And a heads up, I'm looking at > > I will. Working hard to have the code done by Sunday. > > Good, and here is the patchset I mentioned: > > https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/cover.1712923998.git.asml.silence@gmail.com/T/ Wow! 6x improvment is crazy. I just finished the code for notif grouping, and will be benchmarking it in the upcoming hours/days. It's still in a pre-alpha state, so I'll have to put a little more work into it. (pre-alpha means leaking memory. I have 32 gigs in my system. Assuming I don't go too crazy on the benchmarking I should be fine) Either way, my patch will need a little bit of work to be compatible with yours, as it modifies the ubuf callback, and yours does too. > > >> improving it a little bit for TCP because of a report, not changing > >> uapi but might change performance math. > > -- > Pavel Begunkov