On 5/26/20 1:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 25/05/2020 22:59, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/25/20 1:29 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2020 21:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> If the file is flagged with FMODE_BUF_RASYNC, then we don't have to punt
>>>> the buffered read to an io-wq worker. Instead we can rely on page
>>>> unlocking callbacks to support retry based async IO. This is a lot more
>>>> efficient than doing async thread offload.
>>>>
>>>> The retry is done similarly to how we handle poll based retry. From
>>>> the unlock callback, we simply queue the retry to a task_work based
>>>> handler.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/io_uring.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> +
>>>> + init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_retry);
>>>> + /* submit ref gets dropped, acquire a new one */
>>>> + refcount_inc(&req->refs);
>>>> + tsk = req->task;
>>>> + ret = task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>>>> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>>> + /* queue just for cancelation */
>>>> + init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_cancel);
>>>> + tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq);
>>>
>>> IIRC, task will be put somewhere around io_free_req(). Then shouldn't here
>>> be
>>> some juggling with reassigning req->task with task_{get,put}()?
>>
>> Not sure I follow? Yes, we'll put this task again when the request
>> is freed, but not sure what you mean with juggling?
>
> I meant something like:
>
> ...
> /* queue just for cancelation */
> init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_cancel);
> + put_task_struct(req->task);
> + req->task = get_task_struct(io_wq_task);
>
>
> but, thinking twice, if I got the whole idea right, it should be ok as
> is -- io-wq won't go away before the request anyway, and leaving
> req->task pinned down for a bit is not a problem.
OK good, then I thin kwe agree it's fine.
>>>> + task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>>>> + }
>>>> + wake_up_process(tsk);
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> +}
>>> ...
>>>> static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>>> {
>>>> struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
>>>> @@ -2601,6 +2696,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool
>>>> force_nonblock)
>>>> if (!ret) {
>>>> ssize_t ret2;
>>>>
>>>> +retry:
>>>> if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
>>>> ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
>>>> else
>>>> @@ -2619,6 +2715,9 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool
>>>> force_nonblock)
>>>> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>>>> !file_can_poll(req->file))
>>>> req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
>>>> + if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
>>>
>>> It looks like a state machine with IOCB_WAITQ and gotos. Wouldn't it be
>>> cleaner
>>> to call call_read_iter()/loop_rw_iter() here directly instead of "goto
>>> retry" ?
>>
>> We could, probably making that part a separate helper then. How about the
>> below incremental?
>
> IMHO, it was easy to get lost with such implicit state switching.
> Looks better now! See a small comment below.
Agree, that is cleaner.
>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>> index a5a4d9602915..669dccd81207 100644
>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>> @@ -2677,6 +2677,13 @@ static bool io_rw_should_retry(struct io_kiocb *req)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, struct iov_iter *iter)
>> +{
>> + if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
>> + return call_read_iter(req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
>> + return loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>> {
>> struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
>> @@ -2710,11 +2717,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool
>> force_nonblock)
>> if (!ret) {
>> ssize_t ret2;
>>
>> -retry:
>> - if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
>> - ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
>> - else
>> - ret2 = loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, kiocb, &iter);
>> + ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
>>
>> /* Catch -EAGAIN return for forced non-blocking submission */
>> if (!force_nonblock || ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
>> @@ -2729,8 +2732,11 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool
>> force_nonblock)
>> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>> !file_can_poll(req->file))
>> req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
>> - if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
>> - goto retry;
>> + if (io_rw_should_retry(req)) {
>> + ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
>> + if (ret2 != -EAGAIN)
>> + goto out_free;
>
> "goto out_free" returns ret=0, so someone should add a cqe
>
> if (ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
> kiocb_done(kiocb, ret2);
> goto free_out;
> }
Fixed up in the current one.
--
Jens Axboe
