public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() with MSG_WAITALL
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 07:10:57 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 3/21/21 4:20 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> 
> Am 20.03.21 um 23:57 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>> On 3/20/21 1:33 PM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>> Without that it's not safe to use them in a linked combination with
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Now combinations like IORING_OP_SENDMSG followed by IORING_OP_SPLICE
>>> should be possible.
>>>
>>> We already handle short reads and writes for the following opcodes:
>>>
>>> - IORING_OP_READV
>>> - IORING_OP_READ_FIXED
>>> - IORING_OP_READ
>>> - IORING_OP_WRITEV
>>> - IORING_OP_WRITE_FIXED
>>> - IORING_OP_WRITE
>>> - IORING_OP_SPLICE
>>> - IORING_OP_TEE
>>>
>>> Now we have it for these as well:
>>>
>>> - IORING_OP_SENDMSG
>>> - IORING_OP_SEND
>>> - IORING_OP_RECVMSG
>>> - IORING_OP_RECV
>>>
>>> For IORING_OP_RECVMSG we also check for the MSG_TRUNC and MSG_CTRUNC
>>> flags in order to call req_set_fail_links().
>>>
>>> There might be applications arround depending on the behavior
>>> that even short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() retuns continue an
>>> IOSQE_IO_LINK chain.
>>>
>>> It's very unlikely that such applications pass in MSG_WAITALL,
>>> which is only defined in 'man 2 recvmsg', but not in 'man 2 sendmsg'.
>>>
>>> It's expected that the low level sock_sendmsg() call just ignores
>>> MSG_WAITALL, as MSG_ZEROCOPY is also ignored without explicitly set
>>> SO_ZEROCOPY.
>>>
>>> We also expect the caller to know about the implicit truncation to
>>> MAX_RW_COUNT, which we don't detect.
>>
>> Thanks, I do think this is much better and I feel comfortable getting
>> htis applied for 5.12 (and stable).
>>
> 
> Great thanks!
> 
> Related to that I have a questing regarding the IOSQE_IO_LINK behavior.
> (Assuming I have a dedicated ring for the send-path of each socket.)
> 
> Is it possible to just set IOSQE_IO_LINK on every sqe in order to create
> an endless chain of requests so that userspace can pass as much sqes as possible
> which all need to be submitted in the exact correct order. And if any request
> is short, then all remaining get ECANCELED, without the risk of running any later
> request out of order.
> 
> Are such link chains possible also over multiple io_uring_submit() calls?
> Is there still a race between, having an iothread removing the request from
> from the list and fill in a cqe with ECANCELED, that userspace is not awaire
> of yet, which then starts a new independed link chain with a request that
> ought to be submitted after all the canceled once.
> 
> Or do I have to submit a link chain with just a single __io_uring_flush_sq()
> and then strictly need to wait until I got a cqe for the last request in
> the chain?

A chain can only exist within a single submit attempt, so it will not work
if you need to break it up over multiple io_uring_enter() calls.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-21 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-16 15:33 [PATCH 0/2] send[msg]()/recv[msg]() fixes/improvements Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-16 15:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() calls Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-20 19:33   ` [PATCH v2 1/1] io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() with MSG_WAITALL Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-20 22:57     ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-21 10:20       ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-21 13:10         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-03-16 15:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: imply MSG_NOSIGNAL for send[msg]()/recv[msg]() calls Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-17 22:36 ` [PATCH 0/2] send[msg]()/recv[msg]() fixes/improvements Jens Axboe
2021-03-17 23:07   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-03-17 23:24     ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-17 23:26     ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-17 23:39       ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-03-18  0:15         ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-18 13:00           ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-03-18 13:08           ` 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] \
    [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