Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/20] io_uring: add interface queue

David Wei
2023-12-21T01:44:04Z

On 2023-12-20 08:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/19/23 2:03 PM, David Wei wrote:
>> @@ -750,6 +753,54 @@ enum {
>> SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT,
>> };
>>
>> +struct io_uring_rbuf_rqe {
>> + __u32 off;
>> + __u32 len;
>> + __u16 region;
>> + __u8 __pad[6];
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct io_uring_rbuf_cqe {
>> + __u32 off;
>> + __u32 len;
>> + __u16 region;
>> + __u8 sock;
>> + __u8 flags;
>> + __u8 __pad[2];
>> +};
>
> Looks like this leaves a gap? Should be __pad[4] or probably just __u32
> __pad; For all of these, definitely worth thinking about if we'll ever
> need more than the slight padding. Might not hurt to always leave 8
> bytes extra, outside of the required padding.

Apologies, it's been a while since I last pahole'd these structs. We may
have added more fields later and reintroduced gaps.

>
>> +struct io_rbuf_rqring_offsets {
>> + __u32 head;
>> + __u32 tail;
>> + __u32 rqes;
>> + __u8 __pad[4];
>> +};
>
> Ditto here, __u32 __pad;
>
>> +struct io_rbuf_cqring_offsets {
>> + __u32 head;
>> + __u32 tail;
>> + __u32 cqes;
>> + __u8 __pad[4];
>> +};
>
> And here.
>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Argument for IORING_REGISTER_ZC_RX_IFQ
>> + */
>> +struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg {
>> + __u32 if_idx;
>> + /* hw rx descriptor ring id */
>> + __u32 if_rxq_id;
>> + __u32 region_id;
>> + __u32 rq_entries;
>> + __u32 cq_entries;
>> + __u32 flags;
>> + __u16 cpu;
>> +
>> + __u32 mmap_sz;
>> + struct io_rbuf_rqring_offsets rq_off;
>> + struct io_rbuf_cqring_offsets cq_off;
>> +};
>
> You have rq_off starting at a 48-bit offset here, don't think this is
> going to work as it's uapi. You'd need padding to align it to 64-bits.

I will remove the io_rbuf_cqring in a future patchset which should
simplify things, but io_rbuf_rqring will stay. I'll make sure offsets
are 64-bit aligned.

>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/zc_rx.c b/io_uring/zc_rx.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5fc94cad5e3a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/io_uring/zc_rx.c
>> +int io_register_zc_rx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>> + struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg __user *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg reg;
>> + struct io_zc_rx_ifq *ifq;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (copy_from_user(&reg, arg, sizeof(reg)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + if (ctx->ifq)
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + if (reg.if_rxq_id == -1)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + ifq = io_zc_rx_ifq_alloc(ctx);
>> + if (!ifq)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + /* TODO: initialise network interface */
>> +
>> + ret = io_allocate_rbuf_ring(ifq, &reg);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto err;
>> +
>> + /* TODO: map zc region and initialise zc pool */
>> +
>> + ifq->rq_entries = reg.rq_entries;
>> + ifq->cq_entries = reg.cq_entries;
>> + ifq->if_rxq_id = reg.if_rxq_id;
>> + ctx->ifq = ifq;
>
> As these TODO's are removed in later patches, I think you should just
> not include them to begin with. It reads more like notes to yourself,
> doesn't really add anything to the series.

Got it, will remove them.

>
>> +void io_shutdown_zc_rx_ifqs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);
>> +}
>
> This is a bit odd?
>