From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Deduplicate io_*_prep calls?
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:17:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 2/23/20 6:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's currently two places that know to call io_*_prep() for
> sqes. io_req_defer_prep() and io_issue_sqe(). E.g. for READV there's:
>
> static int io_req_defer_prep(struct io_kiocb *req,
> const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
> ...
> case IORING_OP_READV:
> case IORING_OP_READ_FIXED:
> case IORING_OP_READ:
> ret = io_read_prep(req, sqe, true);
> break;
>
> and
>
> static int io_issue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
> struct io_kiocb **nxt, bool force_nonblock)
> {
> ...
> case IORING_OP_READV:
> case IORING_OP_READ_FIXED:
> case IORING_OP_READ:
> if (sqe) {
> ret = io_read_prep(req, sqe, force_nonblock);
> if (ret < 0)
> break;
> }
> ret = io_read(req, nxt, force_nonblock);
> break;
>
> that seems a bit unnecessary. How about breaking that out into a
> separate function? I can write up a patch, just didn't want to do so if
> there's a reason for the current split.
>
>
> Alternatively it'd could all be just be dispatches via io_op_defs, but
> that'd be a bigger change with potential performance implications. And
> it'd benefit from prior deduplication anyway.
The reason for the split is that if we defer a request, it has to be
prepared up front. If the request has been deferred, then the
io_issue_sqe() invocation has sqe == NULL. Hence we only run the prep
handler once, and read the sqe just once.
This could of course be compacted with some indirect function calls, but
I didn't want to pay the overhead of doing so... The downside is that
the code is a bit bigger.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-24 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-24 1:07 Deduplicate io_*_prep calls? Andres Freund
2020-02-24 3:17 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-02-24 3:33 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 3:52 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 7:12 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 9:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:40 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:44 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:46 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:53 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:56 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 16:02 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 16:18 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 17:08 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 17:16 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-25 9:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-27 21:06 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 16:53 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 17:19 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:37 ` Pavel Begunkov
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] \
/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