lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: move *queue_link_head() from common path
From
Date
On 12/17/19 11:12 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 17/12/2019 21:07, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/17/19 11:05 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2019 21:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/19 10:52 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> - } 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.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I follow what you're saying here, can you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure
>>>
>>> #define IOSQE_IO_LINK (1U << 2) /* links next sqe */
>>> #define IOSQE_IO_HARDLINK (1U << 3) /* like LINK, but stronger */
>>>
>>> That's 2 consequent bits, so 4 states:
>>> 0,0 -> not a link
>>> 1,0 -> common link
>>> 0,1 -> hard link
>>> 1,1 -> reserved, space for another link-quirk type
>>>
>>> But that would require additional check, i.e.
>>>
>>> if (flags&(LINK|HARDLINK) == (LINK|HARDLINK)) ...
>>
>> Ah, I see. In terms of usability, I think it makes more sense to have
>>
>> IOSQE_LINK | IOSQE_HARDLINK
>>
>> be the same as just IOSQE_LINK. It would be nice to retain that for
>
> Probably, you meant it to be the same as __IOSQE_HARDLINK__
>
>> something else, but I think it'll be more confusing to users.
>>
>
> Yeah, and it's easier for something like:
>
> sqe->flags |= IOSQE_LINK;
> [some code]
> if (timer_or_whatever())
> sqe->flags |= IOSQE_HARDLINK;

Precisely. So let's keep it as-is.


--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 19:17    [W:0.042 / U:4.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site