On 10/30/24 00:45, Ming Lei wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 04:47:59PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 10/25/24 13:22, Ming Lei wrote:
...
diff --git a/io_uring/rw.c b/io_uring/rw.c
index 4bc0d762627d..5a2025d48804 100644
--- a/io_uring/rw.c
+++ b/io_uring/rw.c
@@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ static int io_prep_rw_setup(struct io_kiocb *req, int ddir, bool do_import)
if (io_rw_alloc_async(req))
return -ENOMEM;
- if (!do_import || io_do_buffer_select(req))
+ if (!do_import || io_do_buffer_select(req) ||
+ io_use_leased_grp_kbuf(req))
return 0;
rw = req->async_data;
@@ -489,6 +490,11 @@ static bool __io_complete_rw_common(struct io_kiocb *req, long res)
}
req_set_fail(req);
req->cqe.res = res;
+ if (io_use_leased_grp_kbuf(req)) {
That's what I'm talking about, we're pushing more and
into the generic paths (or patching every single hot opcode
there is). You said it's fine for ublk the way it was, i.e.
without tracking, so let's then pretend it's a ublk specific
feature, kill that addition and settle at that if that's the
way to go.
As I mentioned before, it isn't ublk specific, zeroing is required
because the buffer is kernel buffer, that is all. Any other approach
needs this kind of handling too. The coming fuse zc need it.
And it can't be done in driver side, because driver has no idea how
to consume the kernel buffer.
Also it is only required in case of short read/recv, and it isn't
hot path, not mention it is just one check on request flag.
I agree, it's not hot, it's a failure path, and the recv side
is of medium hotness, but the main concern is that the feature
is too actively leaking into other requests.
--
Pavel Begunkov
