On 7/7/20 2:23 PM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:41:05PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 03:32:08PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:27:17AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:

quoted

On 7/6/20 8:10 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 03:12:50PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:

quoted

On 7/5/20 3:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 03:00:47PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:

quoted

On 7/5/20 12:47 PM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:

quoted

From: Selvakumar S <redacted>

For zone-append, block-layer will return zone-relative offset via ret2
of ki_complete interface. Make changes to collect it, and send to
user-space using cqe->flags.

quoted

quoted

I'm surprised you aren't more upset by the abuse of cqe->flags for the
address.

Documentation (https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=297dbcbf-74aee030-297c37f0-0cc47a31ce52-632d3561909b91fc&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fkernel.dk%2Fio_uring.pdf) mentioned cqe->flags can carry
the metadata for the operation. I wonder if this should be called abuse.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Yeah, it's not great either, but we have less leeway there in terms of
how much space is available to pass back extra data.

quoted

What do you think to my idea of interpreting the user_data as being a
pointer to somewhere to store the address?  Obviously other things
can be stored after the address in the user_data.

I don't like that at all, as all other commands just pass user_data
through. This means the application would have to treat this very
differently, and potentially not have a way to store any data for
locating the original command on the user side.

I think you misunderstood me.  You seem to have thought I meant
"use the user_data field to return the address" when I actually meant
"interpret the user_data field as a pointer to where userspace
wants the address stored".

It's still somewhat weird to have user_data have special meaning, you're
now having the kernel interpret it while every other command it's just
an opaque that is passed through.

But it could of course work, and the app could embed the necessary
u32/u64 in some other structure that's persistent across IO. If it
doesn't have that, then it'd need to now have one allocated and freed
across the lifetime of the IO.

If we're going that route, it'd be better to define the write such that
you're passing in the necessary information upfront. In syscall terms,
then that'd be something ala:

ssize_t my_append_write(int fd, const struct iovec *iov, int iovcnt,
			off_t *offset, int flags);

where *offset is copied out when the write completes. That removes the
need to abuse user_data, with just providing the storage pointer for the
offset upfront.

That works for me!  In io_uring terms, would you like to see that done
as adding:

       union {
               __u64   off;    /* offset into file */
+		__u64   *offp;	/* appending writes */
               __u64   addr2;
       };

But there are peformance implications of this approach?
If I got it right, the workflow is: - Application allocates 64bit of space,
writes "off" into it and pass it
 in the sqe->addr2
- Kernel first reads sqe->addr2, reads the value to know the intended
 write-location, and stores the address somewhere (?) to be used during
 completion. Storing this address seems tricky as this may add one more
 cacheline (in io_kiocb->rw)?

io_kiocb is:
       /* size: 232, cachelines: 4, members: 19 */
       /* forced alignments: 1 */
       /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
so we have another 24 bytes before io_kiocb takes up another cacheline.
If that's a serious problem, I have an idea about how to shrink struct
kiocb by 8 bytes so struct io_rw would have space to store another
pointer.

Yes, io_kiocb has room. Cache-locality wise whether that is fine or
it must be placed within io_rw - I'll come to know once I get to
implement this. Please share the idea you have, it can come handy.

Except it doesn't, I'm not interested in adding per-request type fields
to the generic part of it. Before we know it, we'll blow past the next
cacheline.

If we can find space in the kiocb, that'd be much better. Note that once
the async buffered bits go in for 5.9, then there's no longer a 4-byte
hole in struct kiocb.

quoted

... we've just done an I/O.  Concern about an extra pointer access
seems misplaced?

I was thinking about both read-from (submission) and write-to
(completion) from user-space pointer, and all those checks APIs
(get_user, copy_from_user) perform.....but when seen against I/O (that
too direct), it does look small. Down the line it may matter for cached-IO
but I get your point. 

Really don't think that matters at all.

-- 
Jens Axboe