From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2BAC433EF for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CBDF96B0072; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C6E9A8D0002; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B0F148D0001; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0167.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.167]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8EF6B0072 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD9C8249980 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:39:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79302972840.27.0996DA2 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1E5C0003 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:38:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1648690739; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=y8Nl6IVJz52qLjtsdIKMYIIiAxLgZRhsgfke4NcZajo=; b=YZFtQWuq44s0ojntyuebl6I356wE/LjF+EuTzHxIV8NP5Wq6svZrCVZnd4ONKxpCEzOQY6 x2CdFMRpOqATon3f+saL97/SDBbjvBJmGXnxAb/9DE7Q88XxV86VVlHjCpwjRALrJ/QPXE lo6h/mPwTBDk+HhxX5FwSt1J5AhaC4Y= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-623-IEkfCVYUMNuNuB92XtdZfA-1; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:38:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IEkfCVYUMNuNuB92XtdZfA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A7F31C05AAA; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:38:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-8-25.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAD96401E29; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:38:42 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Cc: Hannes Reinecke , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Xiaoguang Wang , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] block drivers in user space Message-ID: References: <87tucsf0sr.fsf@collabora.com> <986caf55-65d1-0755-383b-73834ec04967@suse.de> <87o81prfrg.fsf@collabora.com> <87bkxor7ye.fsf@collabora.com> <87tubfpag3.fsf@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tubfpag3.fsf@collabora.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.10 X-Stat-Signature: 7q1gnxm34k8cbgnsftwppccj4fwe5fdq Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=YZFtQWuq; spf=none (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of ming.lei@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=ming.lei@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8E1E5C0003 X-HE-Tag: 1648690739-278154 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:22:20PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > Ming Lei writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 01:20:57PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > >> Ming Lei writes: > >> > >> >> I was thinking of something like this, or having a way for the server to > >> >> only operate on the fds and do splice/sendfile. But, I don't know if it > >> >> would be useful for many use cases. We also want to be able to send the > >> >> data to userspace, for instance, for userspace networking. > >> > > >> > I understand the big point is that how to pass the io data to ubd driver's > >> > request/bio pages. But splice/sendfile just transfers data between two FDs, > >> > then how can the block request/bio's pages get filled with expected data? > >> > Can you explain a bit in detail? > >> > >> Hi Ming, > >> > >> My idea was to split the control and dataplanes in different file > >> descriptors. > >> > >> A queue has a fd that is mapped to a shared memory area where the > >> request descriptors are. Submission/completion are done by read/writing > >> the index of the request on the shared memory area. > >> > >> For the data plane, each request descriptor in the queue has an > >> associated file descriptor to be used for data transfer, which is > >> preallocated at queue creation time. I'm mapping the bio linearly, from > >> offset 0, on these descriptors on .queue_rq(). Userspace operates on > >> these data file descriptors with regular RW syscalls, direct splice to > >> another fd or pipe, or mmap it to move data around. The data is > >> available on that fd until IO is completed through the queue fd. After > >> an operation is completed, the fds are reused for the next IO on that > >> queue position. > >> > >> Hannes has pointed out the issues with fd limits. :) > > > > OK, thanks for the detailed explanation! > > > > Also you may switch to map each request queue/disk into a FD, and every > > request is mapped to one fixed extent of the 'file' via rq->tag since we > > have max sectors limit for each request, then fd limits can be avoided. > > > > But I am wondering if this way is friendly to userspace side implementation, > > since there isn't buffer, only FDs visible to userspace. > > The advantages would be not mapping the request data in userspace if we > could avoid it, since it would be possible to just forward the data > inside the kernel. But my latest understanding is that most use cases > will want to directly manipulate the data anyway, maybe to checksum, or > even for sending through userspace networking. It is not clear to me > anymore that we'd benefit from not always mapping the requests to > userspace. Yeah, I think it is more flexible or usable to allow userspace to operate on data directly as one generic solution, such as, implement one disk to read/write on qcow2 image, or read from/write to network by parsing protocol, or whatever. > I've been looking at your implementation and I really like how simple it > is. I think it's the most promising approach for this feature I've > reviewed so far. I'd like to send you a few patches for bugs I found > when testing it and keep working on making it upstreamable. How can I > send you those patches? Is it fine to just email you or should I also > cc linux-block, even though this is yet out-of-tree code? The topic has been discussed for a bit long, and looks people are still interested in it, so I prefer to send out patches on linux-block if no one objects. Then we can still discuss further when reviewing patches. Thanks, Ming