All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fsx: add IO_URING test
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:44:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200903124413.GD444163@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200823063032.17297-5-zlang@redhat.com>

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 02:30:32PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> New IO_URING test for fsx, use -U option to enable IO_URING test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
> ---

Note that this one doesn't compile if one of the ifdefs doesn't evaluate
true:

fsx.c:2551:6: error: #elif with no expression
 2551 | #elif
      |      ^
    [CC]    fsx
fsx.c: In function 'fsx_rw':
fsx.c:2551:6: error: #elif with no expression
 2551 | #elif
      |      ^
gmake[2]: *** [Makefile:52: fsx] Error 1
gmake[1]: *** [include/buildrules:30: ltp] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:53: default] Error 2

I suspect you want to replace both of those with #else. Otherwise mostly
some aesthetic comments...

>  ltp/fsx.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ltp/fsx.c b/ltp/fsx.c
> index 7c76655a..05663528 100644
> --- a/ltp/fsx.c
> +++ b/ltp/fsx.c
...
> @@ -176,21 +179,17 @@ int	integrity = 0;			/* -i flag */
>  int	fsxgoodfd = 0;
>  int	o_direct;			/* -Z */
>  int	aio = 0;
> +int	uring = 0;
>  int	mark_nr = 0;
>  
>  int page_size;
>  int page_mask;
>  int mmap_mask;
> -#ifdef AIO
> -int aio_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset);
> +int fsx_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset);
>  #define READ 0
>  #define WRITE 1
> -#define fsxread(a,b,c,d)	aio_rw(READ, a,b,c,d)
> -#define fsxwrite(a,b,c,d)	aio_rw(WRITE, a,b,c,d)
> -#else
> -#define fsxread(a,b,c,d)	read(a,b,c)
> -#define fsxwrite(a,b,c,d)	write(a,b,c)
> -#endif
> +#define fsxread(a,b,c,d)	fsx_rw(READ, a,b,c,d)
> +#define fsxwrite(a,b,c,d)	fsx_rw(WRITE, a,b,c,d)
>  

Could we do the refactoring that introduces fsx_rw and shuffles around
some of the existing AIO in an initial refactoring patch?

>  const char *replayops = NULL;
>  const char *recordops = NULL;
...
> @@ -2425,13 +2427,131 @@ out_error:
>  	errno = -ret;
>  	return -1;
>  }
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef URING

A whitespace line here...

> +struct io_uring ring;
> +#define URING_ENTRIES	1024

... and here would help readability.

> +int
> +uring_setup()
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0);
> +	if (ret != 0) {
> +		fprintf(stderr, "uring_setup: io_uring_queue_init failed: %s\n",
> +                        strerror(ret));
> +                return -1;
> +        }
> +        return 0;

Looks like some whitespace damage here.

Also, the fsstress patch has a io_uring_queue_exit() call but I don't
see one in this patch. Is that not needed?

> +}
>  
> -int aio_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)
> +int
> +__uring_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)

Do we still need the __ in the function names here and for __aio_rw()?

>  {
> +	struct io_uring_sqe	*sqe;
> +	struct io_uring_cqe	*cqe;
> +	struct iovec		iovec;
>  	int ret;
> +	int res, res2 = 0;
> +	char *p = buf;
> +	unsigned l = len;
> +	unsigned o = offset;
> +
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Due to io_uring tries non-blocking IOs (especially read), that
> +	 * always cause 'normal' short reading. To avoid this short read
> +	 * fail, try to loop read/write (escpecilly read) data.
> +	 */
> + uring_loop:
> +	sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(&ring);
> +	if (!sqe) {
> +		fprintf(stderr, "uring_rw: io_uring_get_sqe failed: %s\n",
> +		        strerror(errno));
> +		return -1;
> +        }
> +
> +	iovec.iov_base = p;
> +	iovec.iov_len = l;
> +	if (rw == READ) {
> +		io_uring_prep_readv(sqe, fd, &iovec, 1, o);
> +	} else {
> +		io_uring_prep_writev(sqe, fd, &iovec, 1, o);
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = io_uring_submit_and_wait(&ring, 1);
> +	if (ret != 1) {
> +		fprintf(stderr, "errcode=%d\n", -ret);
> +		fprintf(stderr, "uring %s: io_uring_submit failed: %s\n",
> +		        rw == READ ? "read":"write", strerror(-ret));
> +		goto uring_error;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = io_uring_wait_cqe(&ring, &cqe);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		if (ret == 0)

That doesn't look right since we only get here if ret < 0.

> +			fprintf(stderr, "uring %s: no events available\n",
> +			        rw == READ ? "read":"write");
> +		else {
> +			fprintf(stderr, "errcode=%d\n", -ret);
> +			fprintf(stderr, "uring %s: io_uring_wait_cqe failed: %s\n",
> +			        rw == READ ? "read":"write", strerror(-ret));
> +		}
> +		goto uring_error;
> +	}
> +	res = cqe->res;
> +	io_uring_cqe_seen(&ring, cqe);
> +
> +	res2 += res;
> +	if (len != res2) {
> +		if (res > 0) {
> +			o += res;
> +			l -= res;
> +			p += res;
> +			if (l > 0)
> +				goto uring_loop;
> +		} else if (res < 0) {
> +			ret = res;
> +			fprintf(stderr, "errcode=%d\n", -ret);
> +			fprintf(stderr, "uring %s: io_uring failed: %s\n",
> +			        rw == READ ? "read":"write", strerror(-ret));
> +			goto uring_error;

Can we elevate the error checks into the top level rather than nesting
logic like this? It's a little confusing to read and it looks
particularly odd since we've already done res2 += res before we get
here.

Also I'm wondering if this whole function would read a little better as
a do {} while() loop rather than using a label and goto.

> +		} else {
> +			fprintf(stderr, "uring %s bad io length: %d instead of %u\n",
> +			        rw == READ ? "read":"write", res2, len);
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return res2;
> +
> + uring_error:
> +	/*
> +	 * The caller expects error return in traditional libc
> +	 * convention, i.e. -1 and the errno set to error.
> +	 */
> +	errno = -ret;
> +	return -1;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +int fsx_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)
> +{
> +	int ret = -1;
>  
>  	if (aio) {
> +#ifdef AIO
>  		ret = __aio_rw(rw, fd, buf, len, offset);
> +#elif
> +		fprintf(stderr, "io_rw: need AIO support!\n");
> +		exit(111);
> +#endif
> +	} else if (uring) {
> +#ifdef URING
> +		ret = __uring_rw(rw, fd, buf, len, offset);
> +#elif
> +		fprintf(stderr, "io_rw: need IO_URING support!\n");
> +		exit(111);
> +#endif

I think the ifdefs would be cleaner if used to define stubbed out
variants of the associated functions. E.g.:

#ifdef URING
int
__uring_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)
{
	<do uring I/O>
}
#else
int
__uring_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)
{
	fprintf(stderr, "io_rw: need IO_URING support!\n");
	exit(111);
}
#endif

Brian

>  	} else {
>  		if (rw == READ)
>  			ret = read(fd, buf, len);
> @@ -2441,8 +2561,6 @@ int aio_rw(int rw, int fd, char *buf, unsigned len, unsigned offset)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -#endif
> -
>  #define test_fallocate(mode) __test_fallocate(mode, #mode)
>  
>  int
> @@ -2496,7 +2614,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	setvbuf(stdout, (char *)0, _IOLBF, 0); /* line buffered stdout */
>  
>  	while ((ch = getopt_long(argc, argv,
> -				 "b:c:dfg:i:j:kl:m:no:p:qr:s:t:w:xyABD:EFJKHzCILN:OP:RS:WXZ",
> +				 "b:c:dfg:i:j:kl:m:no:p:qr:s:t:w:xyABD:EFJKHzCILN:OP:RS:UWXZ",
>  				 longopts, NULL)) != EOF)
>  		switch (ch) {
>  		case 'b':
> @@ -2604,6 +2722,9 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>  		case 'A':
>  		        aio = 1;
>  			break;
> +		case 'U':
> +		        uring = 1;
> +			break;
>  		case 'D':
>  			debugstart = getnum(optarg, &endp);
>  			if (debugstart < 1)
> @@ -2694,6 +2815,11 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	if (argc != 1)
>  		usage();
>  
> +	if (aio && uring) {
> +		fprintf(stderr, "-A and -U shouldn't be used together\n");
> +		usage();
> +	}
> +
>  	if (integrity && !dirpath) {
>  		fprintf(stderr, "option -i <logdev> requires -P <dirpath>\n");
>  		usage();
> @@ -2784,6 +2910,10 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	if (aio) 
>  		aio_setup();
>  #endif
> +#ifdef URING
> +	if (uring)
> +		uring_setup();
> +#endif
>  
>  	if (!(o_flags & O_TRUNC)) {
>  		off_t ret;
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-03 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-23  6:30 [PATCH v3 0/4] fsstress,fsx: add io_uring test and do some fix Zorro Lang
2020-08-23  6:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] fsstress: add IO_URING read and write operations Zorro Lang
2020-09-03 12:42   ` Brian Foster
2020-09-03 14:07     ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-23  6:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] fsstress: reduce the number of events when io_setup Zorro Lang
2020-09-03 12:42   ` Brian Foster
2020-08-23  6:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] fsstress: fix memory leak in do_aio_rw Zorro Lang
2020-09-03 12:43   ` Brian Foster
2020-08-23  6:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] fsx: add IO_URING test Zorro Lang
2020-09-03 12:44   ` Brian Foster [this message]
2020-09-06 15:55     ` Zorro Lang
2020-09-06 16:27       ` Zorro Lang
2020-09-01  5:16 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] fsstress,fsx: add io_uring test and do some fix Zorro Lang

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 \
    --in-reply-to=20200903124413.GD444163@bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zlang@redhat.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.