On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 08:01:15AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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. Agreed, for-6.15/io_uring-reg-vec is the right base branch for this. Thanks, Sidong > > 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
