From: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>, netdev <[email protected]>,
Dylan Yudaken <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IORING_CQE_F_COPIED
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:12:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi Pavel,
>> As I basically use the same logic that's used to generate SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED
>> for the native MSG_ZEROCOPY, I don't see the problem with IORING_CQE_F_COPIED.
>> Can you be more verbose why you're thinking about something different?
>
> Because it feels like something that should be done roughly once and in
> advance. Performance wise, I agree that a bunch of extra instructions in
> the (io_uring) IO path won't make difference as the net overhead is
> already high, but I still prefer to keep it thin. The complexity is a
> good point though, if only we could piggy back it onto MSG_PROBE.
> Ok, let's do IORING_CQE_F_COPIED and aim 6.2 + possibly backport.
Thanks!
Experimenting with this stuff lets me wish to have a way to
have a different 'user_data' field for the notif cqe,
maybe based on a IORING_RECVSEND_ flag, it may make my life
easier and would avoid some complexity in userspace...
As I need to handle retry on short writes even with MSG_WAITALL
as EINTR and other errors could cause them.
What do you think?
> First, there is no more ubuf_info::zerocopy, see for-next, but you can
> grab space in io_kiocb, io_kiocb::iopoll_completed is a good candidate.
Ok I found your "net: introduce struct ubuf_info_msgzc" and
"net: shrink struct ubuf_info" commits.
I think the change would be trivial, the zerocopy field would just move
to struct io_notif_data..., maybe as 'bool copied'.
> You would want to take one io_uring patch I'm going to send (will CC
> you), with that you won't need to change anything in net/.
The problem is that e.g. tcp_sendmsg_locked() won't ever call
the callback at all if 'zc' is false.
That's why there's the:
if (!zc)
uarg->zerocopy = 0;
Maybe I can inverse the logic and use two variables 'zero_copied'
and 'copied'.
We'd start with both being false and this logic in the callback:
if (success) {
if (unlikely(!nd->zero_copied && !nd->copied))
nd->zero_copied = true;
} else {
if (unlikely(!nd->copied)) {
nd->copied = true;
nd->zero_copied = false;
}
}
And __io_notif_complete_tw still needs:
if (!nd->zero_copied)
notif->cqe.flags |= IORING_CQE_F_COPIED;
instead of if (nd->copied)
> And the last bit, let's make the zc probing conditional under IORING_RECVSEND_* flag,
> I'll make it zero overhead when not set later by replacing the callback.
And the if statement to select a highspeed callback based on
a IORING_RECVSEND_ flag is less overhead than
the if statements in the slow callback version?
metze
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-19 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-14 11:06 IORING_CQE_F_COPIED Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-17 16:46 ` IORING_CQE_F_COPIED Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-18 8:43 ` IORING_CQE_F_COPIED Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-19 15:06 ` IORING_CQE_F_COPIED Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-19 16:12 ` Stefan Metzmacher [this message]
2022-10-20 2:24 ` IORING_CQE_F_COPIED Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-20 10:04 ` IORING_SEND_NOTIF_REPORT_USAGE (was Re: IORING_CQE_F_COPIED) Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-20 13:46 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-20 14:51 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-20 15:31 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 9:36 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-21 11:09 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 14:03 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-27 8:47 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-27 10:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-20 10:10 ` IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA " Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-20 15:37 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 8:32 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-21 9:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 9:45 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-21 11:20 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 12:10 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-21 10:15 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2022-10-21 11:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-10-21 12:38 ` Stefan Metzmacher
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] \
/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