public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
To: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected],
	Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>,
	ZiyangZhang <[email protected]>,
	Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>,
	Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>,
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/17] io_uring/ublk: add IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:02:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 06:31:37PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 05:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Hello Jens,
> > > > 
> > > > Add IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD, it is one special URING_CMD, which has to
> > > > be SQE128. The 1st SQE(master) is one 64byte URING_CMD, and the 2nd
> > > > 64byte SQE(slave) is another normal 64byte OP. For any OP which needs
> > > > to support slave OP, io_issue_defs[op].fused_slave needs to be set as 1,
> > > > and its ->issue() can retrieve/import buffer from master request's
> > > > fused_cmd_kbuf. The slave OP is actually submitted from kernel, part of
> > > > this idea is from Xiaoguang's ublk ebpf patchset, but this patchset
> > > > submits slave OP just like normal OP issued from userspace, that said,
> > > > SQE order is kept, and batching handling is done too.
> > > 
> > > Hi Ming,
> > > 
> > > io_uring and ublk are starting to be more on my radar these days. I
> > > wanted to take a look at this series, but could not get past the
> > > distracting "master"/"slave" terminology in this lead-in paragraph let
> > > alone start looking at patches.
> > > 
> > > Frankly, the description sounds more like "head"/"tail", or even
> > > "fuse0"/"fuse1" because, for example, who is to say you might not have
> > 
> > The term "master/slave" is from patches.
> 
> From what patches?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/[email protected]/T/#u

> 
> I did not understand this explanation either:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Jens just suggested primary/secondary, which looks better, and I will
use them in this thread and next version.

> 
> > The master command not only provides buffer for slave request, but also requires
> > slave request for serving master command, and master command is always completed
> > after all slave request are done.
> 
> In terms of core kernel concepts that description aligns more with
> idiomatic "parent"/"child" relationships where the child object holds a
> reference on the parent.

Yeah, holding reference is true for both two relationships.

But "parent"/"child" relationship is often one long-time relation, but here
both requests are short-time objects, just the secondary requests need to
grab primary command buffer for running IO. After secondary requests IO
is done, the relation is over. So it is sort of temporary/short-term relation,
like contract.

Also the buffer meta(bvec) data are readable for all secondary requests,
and secondary requests have to use buffer in the primary command allowed
direction. So the relation is very limited.

> 
> > That is why it is named as master/slave.
> 
> That explanation did not clarify.

Hope the above words help.

> 
> > Actually Jens raised the similar concern
> 
> Thanks Jens!
> 
> > ...and I hate the name too, but it is always hard to figure out
> > perfect name, or any other name for reflecting the relation?
> > (head/tail, fuse0/1 can't do that, IMO)
> 
> Naming is hard, and master/slave is not appropriate so this needs a new
> name. The reason I mentioned "head"/"tail" is not for ring buffer
> purposes but more for its similarity to pages and folios where the folio
> is not unreferenced until all tail pages are unreferenced.
> 
> In short there are several options that add more clarity and avoid
> running afoul of coding-style.
> 
> > > larger fused ops in the future and need terminology to address
> > > "fuse{0,1,2,3}"?
> > 
> > Yeah, definitely, the interface can be extended in future to support
> > multiple "slave" requests.
> 
> Right, so why not just name them fuse0,1...n and specify that fuse0 is
> the head of a fused op?

fuse0, 1...n often means all these objects sharing common property, such
as, all are objects of same class. However, here we do know primary is
completely different with secondary.


Thanks,
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-28  2:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20230324135916epcas5p37aad4c49c76c05567a484377d8909092@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2023-03-24 13:57 ` [PATCH V4 00/17] io_uring/ublk: add IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 01/17] io_uring: increase io_kiocb->flags into 64bit Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 02/17] io_uring: add IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 03/17] io_uring: support normal SQE for fused command Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 04/17] io_uring: support OP_READ/OP_WRITE for fused slave request Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 05/17] io_uring: support OP_SEND_ZC/OP_RECV " Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 06/17] block: ublk_drv: mark device as LIVE before adding disk Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 07/17] block: ublk_drv: add common exit handling Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:57   ` [PATCH V4 08/17] block: ublk_drv: don't consider flush request in map/unmap io Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 09/17] block: ublk_drv: add two helpers to clean up map/unmap request Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 10/17] block: ublk_drv: clean up several helpers Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 11/17] block: ublk_drv: cleanup 'struct ublk_map_data' Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 12/17] block: ublk_drv: cleanup ublk_copy_user_pages Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 13/17] block: ublk_drv: grab request reference when the request is handled by userspace Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 14/17] block: ublk_drv: support to copy any part of request pages Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 15/17] block: ublk_drv: add read()/write() support for ublk char device Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 16/17] block: ublk_drv: don't check buffer in case of zero copy Ming Lei
2023-03-24 13:58   ` [PATCH V4 17/17] block: ublk_drv: apply io_uring FUSED_CMD for supporting " Ming Lei
2023-03-28  0:36   ` [PATCH V4 00/17] io_uring/ublk: add IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD Dan Williams
2023-03-28  1:16     ` Ming Lei
2023-03-28  1:29       ` Jens Axboe
2023-03-28  1:35         ` Ming Lei
2023-03-28  1:31       ` Dan Williams
2023-03-28  2:02         ` Ming Lei [this message]
2023-03-28  6:32           ` Dan Williams
2023-03-28  3:13       ` Gao Xiang
2023-03-28  3:33         ` Ming Lei
2023-03-28  5:10   ` 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 \
    [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