On 7/7/20 4:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:40:06PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> so we have another 24 bytes before io_kiocb takes up another cacheline.
>>>> If that's a serious problem, I have an idea about how to shrink struct
>>>> kiocb by 8 bytes so struct io_rw would have space to store another
>>>> pointer.
>>> Yes, io_kiocb has room. Cache-locality wise whether that is fine or
>>> it must be placed within io_rw - I'll come to know once I get to
>>> implement this. Please share the idea you have, it can come handy.
>>
>> Except it doesn't, I'm not interested in adding per-request type fields
>> to the generic part of it. Before we know it, we'll blow past the next
>> cacheline.
>>
>> If we can find space in the kiocb, that'd be much better. Note that once
>> the async buffered bits go in for 5.9, then there's no longer a 4-byte
>> hole in struct kiocb.
>
> Well, poot, I was planning on using that. OK, how about this:
Figured you might have had your sights set on that one, which is why I
wanted to bring it up upfront :-)
> +#define IOCB_NO_CMPL (15 << 28)
>
> struct kiocb {
> [...]
> - void (*ki_complete)(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret, long ret2);
> + loff_t __user *ki_uposp;
> - int ki_flags;
> + unsigned int ki_flags;
>
> +typedef void ki_cmpl(struct kiocb *, long ret, long ret2);
> +static ki_cmpl * const ki_cmpls[15];
>
> +void ki_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret, long ret2)
> +{
> + unsigned int id = iocb->ki_flags >> 28;
> +
> + if (id < 15)
> + ki_cmpls[id](iocb, ret, ret2);
> +}
>
> +int kiocb_cmpl_register(void (*cb)(struct kiocb *, long, long))
> +{
> + for (i = 0; i < 15; i++) {
> + if (ki_cmpls[id])
> + continue;
> + ki_cmpls[id] = cb;
> + return id;
> + }
> + WARN();
> + return -1;
> +}
That could work, we don't really have a lot of different completion
types in the kernel.
--
Jens Axboe
