On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 08:33:03AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx> When you disable all the optional features in your kernel config and request queue, it looks like the normal request dispatching is just as fast as any attempts to bypass it. So let's do that instead of reinventing everything. This doesn't require additional queues or user setup. It continues to work with multiple threads and processes, and relies on the well tested queueing mechanisms that track timeouts, handle tag exhuastion, and sync with controller state needed for reset control, hotplug events, and other error handling.
I agree with your point that there are some functional holes in the complete-bypass approach. Yet the work was needed to be done to figure out the gain (of approach) and see whether the effort to fill these holes is worth. On your specific points - requiring additional queues: not a showstopper IMO. If queues are lying unused with HW, we can reap more performance by giving those to application. If not, we fall back to the existing path. No disruption as such. - tag exhaustion: that is not missing, a retry will be made. I actually wanted to do single command-id management at the io_uring level itself, and that would have cleaned things up. But it did not fit in because of submission/completion lifetime differences. - timeout and other bits you mentioned: yes, those need more work. Now with the alternate proposed in this series, I doubt whether similar gains are possible. Happy to be wrong if that happens. Please note that for some non-block command sets, passthrough is the only usable interface. So these users would want some of the functionality bits too (e.g. cgroups). Cgroups is broken for the passthrough at the moment, and I wanted to do something about that too. Overall, the usage model that I imagine with multiple paths is this - 1. existing block IO path: for block-friendly command-sets 2. existing passthrough IO path: for non-block command sets 3. new pure-bypass variant: for both; and this one deliberately trims all the fat at the expense of some features/functionality. #2 will not have all the features of #1, but good to have all that are necessary and do not have semantic troubles to fit in. And these may grow over time, leading to a kernel that has improved parity between block and non-block io. Do you think this makes sense?
