Re: [PATCH for-next 1/2] io_uring/cmd: add cmd lazy tw wake helper

Pavel Begunkov
2023-05-17T12:04:37Z

On 5/17/23 11:33, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:52:23PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 5/16/23 11:00, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:54:42PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> We want to use IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE in commands. First, introduce a new
>>>> cmd tw helper accepting TWQ flags, and then add
>>>> io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_laz() that will pass IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE and
>>>> imply the "lazy" semantics, i.e. it posts no more than 1 CQE and
>>>> delaying execution of this tw should not prevent forward progress.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/io_uring.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>>>> io_uring/uring_cmd.c     | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>>> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/io_uring.h b/include/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> index 7fe31b2cd02f..bb9c666bd584 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> @@ -46,13 +46,23 @@ int io_uring_cmd_import_fixed(u64 ubuf, unsigned long len, int rw,
>>>>                   struct iov_iter *iter, void *ioucmd);
>>>> void io_uring_cmd_done(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, ssize_t ret, ssize_t res2,
>>>>             unsigned issue_flags);
>>>> -void io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> -            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned));
>>>> struct sock *io_uring_get_socket(struct file *file);
>>>> void __io_uring_cancel(bool cancel_all);
>>>> void __io_uring_free(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>>> void io_uring_unreg_ringfd(void);
>>>> const char *io_uring_get_opcode(u8 opcode);
>>>> +void __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +                void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned),
>>>> +                unsigned flags);
>>>> +/* users should follow semantics of IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE */
>>>
>>> Should this also translate to some warn_on anywhere?
>>
>> Would love to but don't see how. We can only check it doesn't
>> produce more than 1 CQE, but that would need
>>
>> nr_cqes_before = cqes_ready();
>> tw_item->run();
>> WARN_ON(cqes_ready() >= nr_cqes_before + 1);
>>
>> but that's just too ugly
>>
>>
>>>> +void io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned));
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>>>> +{
>>>> +    __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task(ioucmd, task_work_cb, 0);
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> static inline void io_uring_files_cancel(void)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -85,6 +95,10 @@ static inline void io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>>             void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>>>> {
>>>> }
>>>> +static inline void io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> static inline struct sock *io_uring_get_socket(struct file *file)
>>>> {
>>>>     return NULL;
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> index 5e32db48696d..476c7877ce58 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> @@ -20,16 +20,24 @@ static void io_uring_cmd_work(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
>>>>     ioucmd->task_work_cb(ioucmd, issue_flags);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -void io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> -            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>>>> +void __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned),
>>>> +            unsigned flags)
>>>> {
>>>>     struct io_kiocb *req = cmd_to_io_kiocb(ioucmd);
>>>>
>>>>     ioucmd->task_work_cb = task_work_cb;
>>>>     req->io_task_work.func = io_uring_cmd_work;
>>>> -    io_req_task_work_add(req);
>>>> +    __io_req_task_work_add(req, flags);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__io_uring_cmd_do_in_task);
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/io_uring.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/io_uring.h
>>
>> +static inline void io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>> +{
>> +    __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task(ioucmd, task_work_cb, 0);
>> +}
>>
>> That should fail for nvme unless exported.
>
> But it does not. Give it a try.
>
>>> Any reason to export this? No one is using this at the moment.
>>>> +void io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd,
>>>> +            void (*task_work_cb)(struct io_uring_cmd *, unsigned))
>>>> +{
>>>> +    __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task(ioucmd, task_work_cb, IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE);
>>>> }
>>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task);
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy);
>>>
>>> Seems you did not want callers to pass the the new flag (LAZY_WAKE) and
>>> therefore this helper.
>>
>> Yep, I wouldn't mind exposing just *LAZY_WAKE but don't want
>> to let it use whatever flags there might be in the future.
>>
>> Initially I wanted to just make io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task and
>> io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy static inline, but that would need
>> some code shuffling to make it clean.
>>
>>> And if you did not want callers to know about this flag (internal
>>> details of io_uring), it would be better to have two exported helpers
>>> io_uring_cmd_do_in_task_lazy() and io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task().
>>> Both will use the internal helper __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task with
>>> different flag.
>>
>> That's how it should be in this patch
>
> Nah, in this patch __io_uring_cmd_do_in_task is exported helper. And
> io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task has been changed too (explicit export to
> header based one). Seems like bit more shuffling than what is necessary

Ok, I'll check, thanks

--
Pavel Begunkov