Re: [PATCH 12/12] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 25/05/2020 22:59, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/25/20 1:29 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 23/05/2020 21:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> If the file is flagged with FMODE_BUF_RASYNC, then we don't have to punt
>>> the buffered read to an io-wq worker. Instead we can rely on page
>>> unlocking callbacks to support retry based async IO. This is a lot more
>>> efficient than doing async thread offload.
>>>
>>> The retry is done similarly to how we handle poll based retry. From
>>> the unlock callback, we simply queue the retry to a task_work based
>>> handler.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/io_uring.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
>>>
>> ...
>>> +
>>> +	init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_retry);
>>> +	/* submit ref gets dropped, acquire a new one */
>>> +	refcount_inc(&req->refs);
>>> +	tsk = req->task;
>>> +	ret = task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>>> +	if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>> +		/* queue just for cancelation */
>>> +		init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_cancel);
>>> +		tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq);
>>
>> IIRC, task will be put somewhere around io_free_req(). Then shouldn't here be
>> some juggling with reassigning req->task with task_{get,put}()?
> 
> Not sure I follow? Yes, we'll put this task again when the request
> is freed, but not sure what you mean with juggling?

I meant something like:

...
/* queue just for cancelation */
init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_cancel);
+ put_task_struct(req->task);
+ req->task = get_task_struct(io_wq_task);


but, thinking twice, if I got the whole idea right, it should be ok as is --
io-wq won't go away before the request anyway, and leaving req->task pinned down
for a bit is not a problem.

>>> +		task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>>> +	}
>>> +	wake_up_process(tsk);
>>> +	return 1;
>>> +}
>> ...
>>>  static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
>>> @@ -2601,6 +2696,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>>  	if (!ret) {
>>>  		ssize_t ret2;
>>>  
>>> +retry:
>>>  		if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
>>>  			ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
>>>  		else
>>> @@ -2619,6 +2715,9 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>>  			if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>>>  			    !file_can_poll(req->file))
>>>  				req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
>>> +			if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
>>
>> It looks like a state machine with IOCB_WAITQ and gotos. Wouldn't it be cleaner
>> to call call_read_iter()/loop_rw_iter() here directly instead of "goto retry" ?
> 
> We could, probably making that part a separate helper then. How about the
> below incremental?

IMHO, it was easy to get lost with such implicit state switching.
Looks better now! See a small comment below.

> 
>> BTW, can this async stuff return -EAGAIN ?
> 
> Probably? Prefer not to make any definitive calls on that being possible or
> not, as it's sure to disappoint. If it does and IOCB_WAITQ is already set,
> then we'll punt to a thread like before.

Sounds reasonable

> 
> 
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index a5a4d9602915..669dccd81207 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -2677,6 +2677,13 @@ static bool io_rw_should_retry(struct io_kiocb *req)
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> +static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, struct iov_iter *iter)
> +{
> +	if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
> +		return call_read_iter(req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
> +	return loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
> +}
> +
>  static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  {
>  	struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
> @@ -2710,11 +2717,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  	if (!ret) {
>  		ssize_t ret2;
>  
> -retry:
> -		if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
> -			ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
> -		else
> -			ret2 = loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, kiocb, &iter);
> +		ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
>  
>  		/* Catch -EAGAIN return for forced non-blocking submission */
>  		if (!force_nonblock || ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
> @@ -2729,8 +2732,11 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  			if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>  			    !file_can_poll(req->file))
>  				req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
> -			if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
> -				goto retry;
> +			if (io_rw_should_retry(req)) {
> +				ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
> +				if (ret2 != -EAGAIN)
> +					goto out_free;

"goto out_free" returns ret=0, so someone should add a cqe

if (ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
	kiocb_done(kiocb, ret2);
	goto free_out;
}


> +			}
>  			kiocb->ki_flags &= ~IOCB_WAITQ;
>  			return -EAGAIN;
>  		}
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov