From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com [209.85.166.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDE0B154C02 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714141560; cv=none; b=pcfCX2Jy6LmJ6qzDx+/k8hYysb3DUj/V1AzssYPr4o/II+K+TCxHyPONVntKzwZjsALLmGfV1SDn6nlX9MnbwbYAuIwmjLTg4C1qvCgBRiUvvoBJJbGZ6O2yySYxphOitTFmUDb3CCXwXYgrj5ByBwFwtr7hVdiRkVKlB6tKz1w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714141560; c=relaxed/simple; bh=R+X6vEPvFdoCJxBIEPLQMPr/wTwjjGdva+cEfV/Afi0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Zo7KLUxtpXGBmT2euzzFxNOqkNaZQPuGcGE0k16shwKRMdf6Kd9NTZwJ51P3YgaoOUKsNSfPTiFhqpMEyyLHPflnnHVm3dbP0OZ/bHxJ+7XzB5a5mRROgkGfveBimb2di9VOUF+3wmA/YFRmCIxes84t+3jmWlaqml+OLoeEBhI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=2SQEIX/0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="2SQEIX/0" Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-7d9c78d7f97so17011439f.3 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:25:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1714141558; x=1714746358; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SYZdlhOSW2plAcrRNZa4kVgqNxzt+id2KNIRqIUgxH0=; b=2SQEIX/067Onznf3PPogeA2vv3fIQ2IDTTWwUS0E3M1LKaIcyhl6rwHwocm3R0WMQ2 0GSkqKniGnkpwN69me2mJgasxJXZNr6U1g1nOsswzKiMRUlN/S2LBvWgnP/DAI8vo221 9MfqjzNl/KcVqrgRGat7bLDGIG+obdqahC9mSYM58uTGydS9Tzw2wOZhtzBcICl+Yvk2 FmpyCKpBZwvwnGL22CrA2iUGUWO38KR7SavdfU9cqO6PVLQfVaPcq1NYCiOkPWNgOYLO U8zHh4AYd8u1dakr5XBbQ4qgJbbsKaxdIgXtezypgWMCw2CuRUY2GqGgB+nEbdT96T8R aaKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714141558; x=1714746358; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SYZdlhOSW2plAcrRNZa4kVgqNxzt+id2KNIRqIUgxH0=; b=MqQP5Q+S4qRlDHjpCqqBE+t1HqQ0/IH56uuHHNDsAjduVLnY1T0rwZ6aktUeMcKdAC Cd+ahD4OWFU4XVoItOCtOKMw7NnmnaTy/c7QCfviF7VuVUpRafpq3asRLTB2Jw1L+/Vx 1+/i0Iyn8sE0n61kbeW8TZX1Jn3rdrZxmDoJrC5KD9yBypXMC6MNp31/cC0MRHY2f9/2 AySUEOGPhfQAgRfXaXAWNLtg5hUGUgbSzmlcaxpF5DfXlTQmX8O2TZBC8aHkAzeXa7nn zYkXG1JkNqXTtNYSKbflNRYfqhqy4MHvEcbjGg27lJHVbI8dg7jonVECrKATVtapIH+3 gICQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX2IyDAHq2OwUobuw7O9xWSZq2nnyS4+0kFeWsprwGwqXIpPY2WDbHQuxsIyPzmzCuYKv0GX8ZdBd3+fuWWUI9IaPLTIQ8yaH8= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yym3JyN8Y62HlpfZ9E27+dKv1UmRUjCwNi/XgsMnvYSKeULt75H V8nF/EG2U0GeS8bqs0/4PvOAObilZAD5BRWcg6NKXXIJ2hRNkl+Hf9GxzOGi3uY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHWycOosPVtgbMwTpV7/9CaNBl4iip2iOSTKzHCtn56tUpEKvqQDc9Ko3d1m//8UmZnV2Xyig== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1a6d:b0:36b:3c29:8d19 with SMTP id w13-20020a056e021a6d00b0036b3c298d19mr3595304ilv.3.1714141557913; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([96.43.243.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v8-20020a92c6c8000000b0036a1303cc0asm4007216ilm.0.2024.04.26.07.25.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:25:56 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] io_uring/rw: add support to send meta along with read/write Content-Language: en-US To: Kanchan Joshi , martin.petersen@oracle.com, kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, brauner@kernel.org Cc: asml.silence@gmail.com, dw@davidwei.uk, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, Anuj Gupta , Nitesh Shetty References: <20240425183943.6319-1-joshi.k@samsung.com> <20240425183943.6319-9-joshi.k@samsung.com> From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <20240425183943.6319-9-joshi.k@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > diff --git a/io_uring/rw.c b/io_uring/rw.c > index 3134a6ece1be..b2c9ac91d5e5 100644 > --- a/io_uring/rw.c > +++ b/io_uring/rw.c > @@ -587,6 +623,8 @@ static int kiocb_done(struct io_kiocb *req, ssize_t ret, > > req->flags &= ~REQ_F_REISSUE; > iov_iter_restore(&io->iter, &io->iter_state); > + if (unlikely(rw->kiocb.ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META)) > + iov_iter_restore(&io->meta.iter, &io->iter_meta_state); > return -EAGAIN; > } > return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE; This puzzles me a bit, why is the restore now dependent on IOCB_USE_META? > @@ -768,7 +806,7 @@ static int io_rw_init_file(struct io_kiocb *req, fmode_t mode) > if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE)) > req->flags |= io_file_get_flags(file); > > - kiocb->ki_flags = file->f_iocb_flags; > + kiocb->ki_flags |= file->f_iocb_flags; > ret = kiocb_set_rw_flags(kiocb, rw->flags); > if (unlikely(ret)) > return ret; > @@ -787,7 +825,8 @@ static int io_rw_init_file(struct io_kiocb *req, fmode_t mode) > if (!(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT) || !file->f_op->iopoll) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > - kiocb->private = NULL; > + if (likely(!(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META))) > + kiocb->private = NULL; > kiocb->ki_flags |= IOCB_HIPRI; > kiocb->ki_complete = io_complete_rw_iopoll; > req->iopoll_completed = 0; Why don't we just set ->private generically earlier, eg like we do for the ki_flags, rather than have it be a branch in here? > @@ -853,7 +892,8 @@ static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > } else if (ret == -EIOCBQUEUED) { > return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE; > } else if (ret == req->cqe.res || ret <= 0 || !force_nonblock || > - (req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) || !need_complete_io(req)) { > + (req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) || !need_complete_io(req) || > + (kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META)) { > /* read all, failed, already did sync or don't want to retry */ > goto done; > } Would it be cleaner to stuff that IOCB_USE_META check in need_complete_io(), as that would closer seem to describe why that check is there in the first place? With a comment. > @@ -864,6 +904,12 @@ static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > * manually if we need to. > */ > iov_iter_restore(&io->iter, &io->iter_state); > + if (unlikely(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META)) { > + /* don't handle partial completion for read + meta */ > + if (ret > 0) > + goto done; > + iov_iter_restore(&io->meta.iter, &io->iter_meta_state); > + } Also seems a bit odd why we need this check here, surely if this is needed other "don't do retry IOs" conditions would be the same? > @@ -1053,7 +1099,8 @@ int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > if (ret2 == -EAGAIN && (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL)) > goto ret_eagain; > > - if (ret2 != req->cqe.res && ret2 >= 0 && need_complete_io(req)) { > + if (ret2 != req->cqe.res && ret2 >= 0 && need_complete_io(req) > + && !(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META)) { > trace_io_uring_short_write(req->ctx, kiocb->ki_pos - ret2, > req->cqe.res, ret2); Same here. Would be nice to integrate this a bit nicer rather than have a bunch of "oh we also need this extra check here" conditions. > @@ -1074,12 +1121,33 @@ int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > } else { > ret_eagain: > iov_iter_restore(&io->iter, &io->iter_state); > + if (unlikely(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_USE_META)) > + iov_iter_restore(&io->meta.iter, &io->iter_meta_state); > if (kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_WRITE) > io_req_end_write(req); > return -EAGAIN; > } > } Same question here on the (now) conditional restore. > +int io_rw_meta(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > +{ > + struct io_rw *rw = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_rw); > + struct io_async_rw *io = req->async_data; > + struct kiocb *kiocb = &rw->kiocb; > + int ret; > + > + if (!(req->file->f_flags & O_DIRECT)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; Why isn't this just caught at init time when IOCB_DIRECT is checked? > + kiocb->private = &io->meta; > + if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_READ_META) > + ret = io_read(req, issue_flags); > + else > + ret = io_write(req, issue_flags); > + > + return ret; > +} kiocb->private is a bit of an odd beast, and ownership isn't clear at all. It would make the most sense if the owner of the kiocb (eg io_uring in this case) owned it, but take a look at eg ocfs2 and see what they do with it... I think this would blow up as a result. Outside of that, and with the O_DIRECT thing check fixed, this should just be two separate functions, one for read and one for write. -- Jens Axboe