On 4/24/23 8:13?PM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 08:08:09PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 4/24/23 6:57?PM, Ming Lei wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 09:24:33AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 4/24/23 1:30?AM, Ming Lei wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:31:35PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> Add an opdef bit for them, and set it for the opcodes where we always >>>>>> need io-wq punt. With that done, exclude them from the file_can_poll() >>>>>> check in terms of whether or not we need to punt them if any of the >>>>>> NO_OFFLOAD flags are set. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> io_uring/io_uring.c | 2 +- >>>>>> io_uring/opdef.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>>> io_uring/opdef.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>> index fee3e461e149..420cfd35ebc6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>> @@ -1948,7 +1948,7 @@ static int io_issue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) >>>>>> return -EBADF; >>>>>> >>>>>> if (issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NO_OFFLOAD && >>>>>> - (!req->file || !file_can_poll(req->file))) >>>>>> + (!req->file || !file_can_poll(req->file) || def->always_iowq)) >>>>>> issue_flags &= ~IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK; >>>>> >>>>> I guess the check should be !def->always_iowq? >>>> >>>> How so? Nobody that takes pollable files should/is setting >>>> ->always_iowq. If we can poll the file, we should not force inline >>>> submission. Basically the ones setting ->always_iowq always do -EAGAIN >>>> returns if nonblock == true. >>> >>> I meant IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK is cleared here for ->always_iowq, and >>> these OPs won't return -EAGAIN, then run in the current task context >>> directly. >> >> Right, of IO_URING_F_NO_OFFLOAD is set, which is entirely the point of >> it :-) > > But ->always_iowq isn't actually _always_ since fallocate/fsync/... are > not punted to iowq in case of IO_URING_F_NO_OFFLOAD, looks the naming of > ->always_iowq is a bit confusing? Yeah naming isn't that great, I can see how that's bit confusing. I'll be happy to take suggestions on what would make it clearer. -- Jens Axboe
