[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710131054.GB7491@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:10:54 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
bcrl@...ck.org, Damien.LeMoal@....com, asml.silence@...il.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matias Bj??rling <mb@...htnvm.io>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:35:43AM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> Append required special treatment (conversion for sector to bytes) for io_uring.
> And we were planning a user-space wrapper to abstract that.
>
> But good part (as it seems now) was: append result went along with cflags at
> virtually no additional cost. And uring code changes became super clean/minimal
> with further revisions.
> While indirect-offset requires doing allocation/mgmt in application,
> io-uring submission
> and in completion path (which seems trickier), and those CQE flags
> still get written
> user-space and serve no purpose for append-write.
I have to say that storing the results in the CQE generally make
so much more sense. I wonder if we need a per-fd "large CGE" flag
that adds two extra u64s to the CQE, and some ops just require this
version.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists