Re: [PATCH v1 12/15] io_uring/zcrx: add io_recvzc request

Pavel Begunkov
2024-10-09T19:26:41Z

On 10/9/24 20:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/9/24 12:51 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 10/9/24 19:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
>>>> index d08abcca89cc..482e138d2994 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/net.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/net.c
>>>> @@ -1193,6 +1201,76 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> +int io_recvzc_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct io_recvzc *zc = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_recvzc);
>>>> + unsigned ifq_idx;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (unlikely(sqe->file_index || sqe->addr2 || sqe->addr ||
>>>> + sqe->len || sqe->addr3))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + ifq_idx = READ_ONCE(sqe->zcrx_ifq_idx);
>>>> + if (ifq_idx != 0)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + zc->ifq = req->ctx->ifq;
>>>> + if (!zc->ifq)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> This is read and assigned to 'zc' here, but then the issue handler does
>>> it again? I'm assuming that at some point we'll have ifq selection here,
>>> and then the issue handler will just use zc->ifq. So this part should
>>> probably remain, and the issue side just use zc->ifq?
>>
>> Yep, fairly overlooked. It's not a real problem, but should
>> only be fetched and checked here.
>
> Right
>
>>>> + /* All data completions are posted as aux CQEs. */
>>>> + req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT;
>>>
>>> This puzzles me a bit...
>>
>> Well, it's a multishot request. And that flag protects from cq
>> locking rules violations, i.e. avoiding multishot reqs from
>> posting from io-wq.
>
> Maybe make it more like the others and require that
> IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT is set then, and set it based on that?

if (IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT)
return -EINVAL;
req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT;

It can be this if that's the preference. It's a bit more consistent,
but might be harder to use. Though I can just hide the flag behind
liburing helpers, would spare from neverending GH issues asking
why it's -EINVAL'ed

>>>> + zc->flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->ioprio);
>>>> + zc->msg_flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->msg_flags);
>>>> + if (zc->msg_flags)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Maybe allow MSG_DONTWAIT at least? You already pass that in anyway.
>>
>> What would the semantics be? The io_uring nowait has always
>> been a pure mess because it's not even clear what it supposed
>> to mean for async requests.
>
> Yeah can't disagree with that. Not a big deal, doesn't really matter,
> can stay as-is.

I went through the MSG_* flags before looking which ones might
even make sense here and be useful... Let's better enable if
it'd be needed.

>>>> + if (zc->flags & ~(IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST | IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>>> + if (req->ctx->compat)
>>>> + zc->msg_flags |= MSG_CMSG_COMPAT;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Heh, we could probably just return -EINVAL for that case, but since this
>>> is all we need, fine.
>>
>> Well, there is no msghdr, cmsg nor iovec there, so doesn't even
>> make sense to set it. Can fail as well, I don't anyone would care.
>
> Then let's please just kill it, should not need a check for that then.
>

--
Pavel Begunkov