On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 4:56 AM Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > as discussed during LPC, we would like to have large CQE sizes, at least > 256B. Ideally 256B for fuse, but CQE512 might be a bit too much... > > Pavel said that this should be ok, but it would be better to have the CQE > size as function argument. > Could you give me some hints how this should look like and especially how > we are going to communicate the CQE size to the kernel? I guess just adding > IORING_SETUP_CQE256 / IORING_SETUP_CQE512 would be much easier. > > I'm basically through with other changes Miklos had been asking for and > moving fuse headers into the CQE is next. Big CQE may not be efficient, there are copy from kernel to CQE and from CQE to userspace. And not flexible, it is one ring-wide property, if it is big, any CQE from this ring has to be big. If you are saying uring_cmd, another way is to mapped one area for this purpose, the fuse driver can write fuse headers to this indexed mmap buffer, and userspace read it, which is just efficient, without io_uring core changes. ublk uses this way to fill IO request header. But it requires each command to have a unique tag. thanks, Ming Lei
