From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4241621105 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726018117; cv=none; b=t1Wmyxvu7noUaLcLakRtpiTgpVfwJGmbapqevagnkyIXEjHkm0Pa1SFrCUR1FbmdeR3o7gu6c8tH0FmZ0vvyGcHnqehSU/KvXY/RZkeBi/cBMORensznugmyCW6ZggCTINvYB9Pyz628JaE115KiOfxjwlWL/eRmIpOHQhkce6g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726018117; c=relaxed/simple; bh=I1FySbNVbbZX/XBUo+yiYw7kXyaBBq+0bAYYEO5R5Dc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IHERB23NJYuJtAkXQ6dfdC7zKDhJt0OumIcp8CawyLBvchTa1n9cs4Yzvpb4GKEnYEGivhL2Sn02k0f2ZlcImI4dBWeZDfm7hBYxRfEZ1ujIgHa73MyaqVwfqI60qP1uvbU1XRxRZQ3is+0+zDdh+TRG3dUA1agdlYTWH6+YIJY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=MDsCnrkT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="MDsCnrkT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1726018114; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RjKvxk5aoZ89HNsVl63IjgyK7viMtFjFleapBc0RaEQ=; b=MDsCnrkTnF29ie/UavQrIe2ByGmUNP1ngVT5S1DWy8Even52J8Zbsp6gj5mkkXQ0T7TFBH i/tGyCiGRSBcFz8E7qogGmVVctWUkJQ1FTfMv7kvK46mrd/uNUMIg2bkda1dCQxsphq/qv /7zh0fTc+4zt9yAq2HaRlNeld29ZXKg= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-323-hx1JP7r2PYasV4HMNOe-1Q-1; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:28:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: hx1JP7r2PYasV4HMNOe-1Q-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A45F61955BC1; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.76]) by mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AB4519560A3; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:28:18 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Pavel Begunkov Cc: Jens Axboe , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/8] io_uring: support SQE group Message-ID: References: <20240808162503.345913-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20240808162503.345913-5-ming.lei@redhat.com> <3c819871-7ca3-47ea-b752-c4a8a49f8304@gmail.com> <36ae357b-bebe-4276-a8db-d6dccf227b61@gmail.com> <7050796e-be88-4e01-abdb-976baba2f83b@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.17 On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:31:45PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 9/10/24 16:04, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:12:53PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > > On 9/7/24 10:36, Ming Lei wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > Wrt. ublk, group provides zero copy, and the ublk io(group) is generic > > > > > > IO, sometime IO_LINK is really needed & helpful, such as in ublk-nbd, > > > > > > send(tcp) requests need to be linked & zc. And we shouldn't limit IO_LINK > > > > > > for generic io_uring IO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > from nuances as such, which would be quite hard to track, the semantics > > > > > > > of IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS is unclear. > > > > > > > > > > > > IO group just follows every normal request. > > > > > > > > > > It tries to mimic but groups don't and essentially can't do it the > > > > > same way, at least in some aspects. E.g. IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS > > > > > usually means that all following will be silenced. What if a > > > > > member is CQE_SKIP, should it stop the leader from posting a CQE? > > > > > And whatever the answer is, it'll be different from the link's > > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > Here it looks easier than link's: > > > > > > > > - only leader's IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS follows linked request's rule > > > > - all members just respects the flag for its own, and not related with > > > > leader's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless, let's forbid IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS and linked timeouts > > > > > for groups, that can be discussed afterwards. > > > > > > > > It should easy to forbid IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS which is per-sqe, will do > > > > it in V6. > > > > > > > > I am not sure if it is easy to disallow IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT, which > > > > covers all linked sqes, and group leader could be just one of them. > > > > Can you share any idea about the implementation to forbid LINK_TIMEOUT > > > > for sqe group? > > > > > > diff --git a/io_uring/timeout.c b/io_uring/timeout.c > > > index 671d6093bf36..83b5fd64b4e9 100644 > > > --- a/io_uring/timeout.c > > > +++ b/io_uring/timeout.c > > > @@ -542,6 +542,9 @@ static int __io_timeout_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, > > > data->mode = io_translate_timeout_mode(flags); > > > hrtimer_init(&data->timer, io_timeout_get_clock(data), data->mode); > > > + if (is_timeout_link && req->ctx->submit_state.group.head) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > if (is_timeout_link) { > > > struct io_submit_link *link = &req->ctx->submit_state.link; > > > > > > This should do, they already look into the ctx's link list. Just move > > > it into the "if (is_timeout_link)" block. > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) fail in linked chain > > > > > > - follows IO_LINK's behavior since io_fail_links() covers io group > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) otherwise > > > > > > - just respect IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS > > > > > > > > > > > > > And also it doen't work with IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT. > > > > > > > > > > > > REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT can work on whole group(or group leader) only, and I > > > > > > will document it in V6. > > > > > > > > > > It would still be troublesome. When a linked timeout fires it searches > > > > > for the request it's attached to and cancels it, however, group leaders > > > > > that queued up their members are discoverable. But let's say you can find > > > > > them in some way, then the only sensbile thing to do is cancel members, > > > > > which should be doable by checking req->grp_leader, but might be easier > > > > > to leave it to follow up patches. > > > > > > > > We have changed sqe group to start queuing members after leader is > > > > completed. link timeout will cancel leader with all its members via > > > > leader->grp_link, this behavior should respect IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT > > > > completely. > > > > > > > > Please see io_fail_links() and io_cancel_group_members(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + lead->grp_refs += 1; > > > > > > > > + group->last->grp_link = req; > > > > > > > > + group->last = req; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + if (req->flags & REQ_F_SQE_GROUP) > > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + req->grp_link = NULL; > > > > > > > > + req->flags |= REQ_F_SQE_GROUP; > > > > > > > > + group->head = NULL; > > > > > > > > + if (lead->flags & REQ_F_FAIL) { > > > > > > > > + io_queue_sqe_fallback(lead); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's say the group was in the middle of a link, it'll > > > > > > > complete that group and continue with assembling / executing > > > > > > > the link when it should've failed it and honoured the > > > > > > > request order. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, here we can simply remove the above two lines, and link submit > > > > > > state can handle this failure in link chain. > > > > > > > > > > If you just delete then nobody would check for REQ_F_FAIL and > > > > > fail the request. > > > > > > > > io_link_assembling() & io_link_sqe() checks for REQ_F_FAIL and call > > > > io_queue_sqe_fallback() either if it is in link chain or > > > > not. > > > > > > The case we're talking about is failing a group, which is > > > also in the middle of a link. > > > > > > LINK_HEAD -> {GROUP_LEAD, GROUP_MEMBER} > > > > > > Let's say GROUP_MEMBER fails and sets REQ_F_FAIL to the lead, > > > then in v5 does: > > > > > > if (lead->flags & REQ_F_FAIL) { > > > io_queue_sqe_fallback(lead); > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > > > In which case it posts cqes for GROUP_LEAD and GROUP_MEMBER, > > > and then try to execute LINK_HEAD (without failing it), which > > > is wrong. So first we need: > > > > > > if (state.linked_link.head) > > > req_fail_link_node(state.linked_link.head); > > > > For group leader, link advancing is always done via io_queue_next(), in > > which io_disarm_next() is called for failing the whole remained link > > if the current request is marked as FAIL. > > > > > > > > And then we can't just remove io_queue_sqe_fallback(), because > > > when a group is not linked there would be no io_link_sqe() > > > to fail it. You can do: > > > > If one request in group is marked as FAIL, io_link_assembling() > > will return true, and io_link_sqe() will fail it. > > Hmm, you're right, even though it's not a great way of doing it, > i.e. pushing a req into io_link_sqe() even when linking has never > been requested, but that's fine. I can drop a quick patch on > top if it bothers me. Yeah, it isn't very readable, but following the original logic. Anyway, I will comment that non-linked request is covered by the code block. Thanks, Ming