Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] ublk zero-copy support

Ming Lei
2025-02-13T01:52:39Z

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:06:58PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/12/25 15:28, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:29:32AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > It is explained in the following links:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/b6211101-3f74-4dea-a880-81bb75575dbd@gmail.com/
> > >
> > > - node kbuffer is registered in ublk uring_cmd's ->issue(), but lookup
> > > in RW_FIXED OP's ->prep(), and ->prep() is always called before calling
> > > ->issue() when the two are submitted in same io_uring_enter(), so you
> > > need to move io_rsrc_node_lookup() & buffer importing from RW_FIXED's ->prep()
> > > to ->issue() first.
> >
> > I don't think that's accurate, at least in practice. In a normal flow,
> > we'll have this sequence:
> >
> > io_submit_sqes
> > io_submit_sqe (uring_cmd ublk register)
> > io_init_req
> > ->prep()
> > io_queue_sqe
> > ->issue()
> > io_submit_sqe (read/write_fixed)
> > io_init_req
> > ->prep()
> > io_queue_sqe
> > ->issue()
> >
> > The first SQE is handled in its entirety before even looking at the
> > subsequent SQE. Since the register is first, then the read/write_fixed's
> > prep will have a valid index. Testing this patch series appears to show
> > this reliably works.
>
> Ming describes how it works for links. This one is indeed how
> non links are normally executed. Though I'd repeat it's an
> implementation detail and not a part of the uapi. Interestingly,
> Keith, you sent some patches changing the ordering here quite a
> while ago, just as an example of how it can change.

My fault, I should have provided the link or async background.

>
>
> > > - secondly, ->issue() order is only respected by IO_LINK, and io_uring
> > > can't provide such guarantee without using IO_LINK:
> > >
> > > Pavel explained it in the following link:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/68256da6-bb13-4498-a0e0-dce88bb32242@gmail.com/
> > >
> > > There are also other examples, such as, register buffer stays in one
> > > link chain, and the consumer OP isn't in this chain, the consumer OP
> > > can still be issued before issuing register_buffer.
> >
> > Yep, I got that. Linking is just something I was hoping to avoid. I
> > understand there are conditions that can break the normal flow I'm
> > relying on regarding the ordering. This hasn't appeared to be a problem
> > in practice, but I agree this needs to be handled.

LINK/ASYNC needs to be supported, and sometimes they are useful.

- IO_LINK is the only way for respecting IO order

io_uring only supports non-link or link all in one batch

- ASYNC sometimes can avoid to call two ->issue() unnecessarily if you
know that the OP can't be dealt with async way in advance, maybe not
one problem for ublk uring_cmd, but it is helpful for some FS write
(un-allocated write)

Thanks,
Ming