lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: move *queue_link_head() from common path
Date
On 17/12/2019 20:37, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/17/19 9:45 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/16/19 4:38 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2019 02:22, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Move io_queue_link_head() to links handling code in io_submit_sqe(),
>>>> so it wouldn't need extra checks and would have better data locality.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/io_uring.c | 32 ++++++++++++++------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> index bac9e711e38d..a880ed1409cb 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> @@ -3373,13 +3373,15 @@ static bool io_submit_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_submit_state *state,
>>>> struct io_kiocb **link)
>>>> {
>>>> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
>>>> + unsigned int sqe_flags;
>>>> int ret;
>>>>
>>>> + sqe_flags = READ_ONCE(req->sqe->flags);
>>>> req->user_data = READ_ONCE(req->sqe->user_data);
>>>> trace_io_uring_submit_sqe(ctx, req->user_data, true, req->in_async);
>>>>
>>>> /* enforce forwards compatibility on users */
>>>> - if (unlikely(req->sqe->flags & ~SQE_VALID_FLAGS)) {
>>>> + if (unlikely(sqe_flags & ~SQE_VALID_FLAGS)) {
>>>> ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> goto err_req;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -3402,10 +3404,10 @@ static bool io_submit_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_submit_state *state,
>>>> if (*link) {
>>>> struct io_kiocb *head = *link;
>>>>
>>>> - if (req->sqe->flags & IOSQE_IO_DRAIN)
>>>> + if (sqe_flags & IOSQE_IO_DRAIN)
>>>> head->flags |= REQ_F_DRAIN_LINK | REQ_F_IO_DRAIN;
>>>>
>>>> - if (req->sqe->flags & IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK)
>>>> + if (sqe_flags & IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK)
>>>> req->flags |= REQ_F_HARDLINK;
>>>>
>>>> if (io_alloc_async_ctx(req)) {
>>>> @@ -3421,9 +3423,15 @@ static bool io_submit_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_submit_state *state,
>>>> }
>>>> trace_io_uring_link(ctx, req, head);
>>>> list_add_tail(&req->link_list, &head->link_list);
>>>> - } else if (req->sqe->flags & (IOSQE_IO_LINK|IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK)) {
>>>> +
>>>> + /* last request of a link, enqueue the link */
>>>> + if (!(sqe_flags & IOSQE_IO_LINK)) {
>>>
>>> This looks suspicious (as well as in the current revision). Returning back
>>> to my questions a few days ago can sqe->flags have IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK, but not
>>> IOSQE_IO_LINK? I don't find any check.
>>>
>>> In other words, should it be as follows?
>>> !(sqe_flags & (IOSQE_IO_LINK|IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK))
>>
>> Yeah, I think that should check for both. I'm fine with either approach
>> in general:
>>
>> - IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK must have IOSQE_IO_LINK set
>>
>> or
>>
>> - IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK implies IOSQE_IO_LINK
>>
>> Seems like the former is easier to verify in terms of functionality,
>> since we can rest easy if we check this early and -EINVAL if that isn't
>> the case.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> If you agree, want to send in a patch for that for 5.5? Then I can respin
> for-5.6/io_uring on top of that, and we can apply your cleanups there.
>
Yes, that's the idea. Already got a patch, if you haven't done it yet.

Just was thinking, whether to add a check for not setting both flags
at the same moment in the "imply" case. Would give us 1 state in 2 bits
for future use.

--
Pavel Begunkov

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 18:53    [W:0.058 / U:7.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site