On 3/13/25 7:56 AM, Sidong Yang wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 01:17:44PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 3/13/25 13:15, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 3/13/25 10:44, Sidong Yang wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 08:57:45AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 3/12/25 14:23, Sidong Yang wrote: >>>>>> This patche series introduce io_uring_cmd_import_vec. With this function, >>>>>> Multiple fixed buffer could be used in uring cmd. It's vectored version >>>>>> for io_uring_cmd_import_fixed(). Also this patch series includes a usage >>>>>> for new api for encoded read in btrfs by using uring cmd. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty much same thing, we're still left with 2 allocations in the >>>>> hot path. What I think we can do here is to add caching on the >>>>> io_uring side as we do with rw / net, but that would be invisible >>>>> for cmd drivers. And that cache can be reused for normal iovec imports. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/isilence/linux.git regvec-import-cmd >>>>> (link for convenience) >>>>> https://github.com/isilence/linux/tree/regvec-import-cmd >>>>> >>>>> Not really target tested, no btrfs, not any other user, just an idea. >>>>> There are 4 patches, but the top 3 are of interest. >>>> >>>> Thanks, I justed checked the commits now. I think cache is good to resolve >>>> this without allocation if cache hit. Let me reimpl this idea and test it >>>> for btrfs. >>> >>> Sure, you can just base on top of that branch, hashes might be >>> different but it's identical to the base it should be on. Your >>> v2 didn't have some more recent merged patches. >> >> Jens' for-6.15/io_uring-reg-vec specifically, but for-next likely >> has it merged. > > Yes, there is commits about io_uring-reg-vec in Jens' for-next. I'll > make v3 based on the branch. Basing patches on that is fine, just never base branches on it. My for-next branch is just a merge point for _everything_ that's queued for the next release, io_uring and block related. The right branch to base on for this case would be for-6.15/io_uring-reg-vec, which is also in my for-next branch. This is more of a FYI than anything, as you're not doing a pull request. Using for-next for patches is fine. -- Jens Axboe
