Re: [PATCH 08/10] io_uring/rw: add support to send meta along with read/write

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

> 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