Message-ID: <CA+1E3rJ5j6MeG3O5Xa7unWLMRz6BacvLVN8xpeEz6AVyJWT55Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:38:27 +0530
From:   Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "bcrl@...ck.org" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        "io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] io_uring: add support for zone-append

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:12 PM Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com> wrote:
>
> On 2020/07/31 3:26, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:24 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/30/20 11:51 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:10 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 30/07/2020 20:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/30/20 10:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>>>> On 30/07/2020 19:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/30/20 10:08 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 27/07/2020 23:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/27/20 1:16 PM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:00 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/20 9:49 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> index 7809ab2..6510cf5 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1284,8 +1301,15 @@ static void __io_cqring_fill_event(struct io_kiocb *req, long res, long cflags)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>       cqe = io_get_cqring(ctx);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>       if (likely(cqe)) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>               WRITE_ONCE(cqe->user_data, req->user_data);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res, res);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->flags, cflags);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             if (unlikely(req->flags & REQ_F_ZONE_APPEND)) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     if (likely(res > 0))
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res64, req->rw.append_offset);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     else
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res64, res);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             } else {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res, res);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     WRITE_ONCE(cqe->flags, cflags);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This would be nice to keep out of the fast path, if possible.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I was thinking of keeping a function-pointer (in io_kiocb) during
> >>>>>>>>>> submission. That would have avoided this check......but argument count
> >>>>>>>>>> differs, so it did not add up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But that'd grow the io_kiocb just for this use case, which is arguably
> >>>>>>>>> even worse. Unless you can keep it in the per-request private data,
> >>>>>>>>> but there's no more room there for the regular read/write side.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>>>>>>>>> index 92c2269..2580d93 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -156,8 +156,13 @@ enum {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  struct io_uring_cqe {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>       __u64   user_data;      /* sqe->data submission passed back */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -     __s32   res;            /* result code for this event */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -     __u32   flags;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +     union {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             struct {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     __s32   res;    /* result code for this event */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +                     __u32   flags;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             };
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +             __s64   res64;  /* appending offset for zone append */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +     };
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  };
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this a compatible change, both for now but also going forward? You
> >>>>>>>>>>> could randomly have IORING_CQE_F_BUFFER set, or any other future flags.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't quite understand the concern. CQE_F_BUFFER is not
> >>>>>>>>>> used/set for write currently, so it looked compatible at this point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not worried about that, since we won't ever use that for writes. But it
> >>>>>>>>> is a potential headache down the line for other flags, if they apply to
> >>>>>>>>> normal writes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, no room for future flags for this operation.
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you see any other way to enable this support in io-uring?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Honestly I think the only viable option is as we discussed previously,
> >>>>>>>>> pass in a pointer to a 64-bit type where we can copy the additional
> >>>>>>>>> completion information to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> TBH, I hate the idea of such overhead/latency at times when SSDs can
> >>>>>>>> serve writes in less than 10ms. Any chance you measured how long does it
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 10us? :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hah, 10us indeed :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> take to drag through task_work?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A 64-bit value copy is really not a lot of overhead... But yes, we'd
> >>>>>>> need to push the completion through task_work at that point, as we can't
> >>>>>>> do it from the completion side. That's not a lot of overhead, and most
> >>>>>>> notably, it's overhead that only affects this particular type.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's not a bad starting point, and something that can always be
> >>>>>>> optimized later if need be. But I seriously doubt it'd be anything to
> >>>>>>> worry about.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I probably need to look myself how it's really scheduled, but if you don't
> >>>>>> mind, here is a quick question: if we do work_add(task) when the task is
> >>>>>> running in the userspace, wouldn't the work execution wait until the next
> >>>>>> syscall/allotted time ends up?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It'll get the task to enter the kernel, just like signal delivery. The only
> >>>>> tricky part is really if we have a dependency waiting in the kernel, like
> >>>>> the recent eventfd fix.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see, thanks for sorting this out!
> >>>
> >>> Few more doubts about this (please mark me wrong if that is the case):
> >>>
> >>> - Task-work makes me feel like N completions waiting to be served by
> >>> single task.
> >>> Currently completions keep arriving and CQEs would be updated with
> >>> result, but the user-space (submitter task) would not be poked.
> >>>
> >>> - Completion-code will set the task-work. But post that it cannot go
> >>> immediately to its regular business of picking cqe and updating
> >>> res/flags, as we cannot afford user-space to see the cqe before the
> >>> pointer update. So it seems completion-code needs to spawn another
> >>> work which will allocate/update cqe after waiting for pointer-update
> >>> from task-work?
> >>
> >> The task work would post the completion CQE for the request after
> >> writing the offset.
> >
> > Got it, thank you for making it simple.
> > Overall if I try to put the tradeoffs of moving to indirect-offset
> > (compared to current scheme)–
> >
> > Upside:
> > - cqe res/flags would be intact, avoids future-headaches as you mentioned
> > - short-write cases do not have to be failed in lower-layers (as
> > cqe->res is there to report bytes-copied)
>
> I personally think it is a super bad idea to allow short asynchronous append
> writes. The interface should allow the async zone append write to proceed only
> and only if it can be stuffed entirely into a single BIO which necessarilly will
> be a single request on the device side. Otherwise, the application would have no
> guarantees as to where a split may happen, and since this is zone append, the
> next async append will not leave any hole to complete a previous short write.
> This will wreak the structure of the application data.
>
> For the sync case, this is fine. The application can just issue a new append
> write with the remaining unwritten data from the previous append write. But in
> the async case, if one write == one data record (e.g. a key-value tuple for an
> SSTable in an LSM tree), then allowing a short write will destroy the record:
> the partial write will be garbage data that will need garbage collection...

There are cases when short-write is fine, isn't it? For example I can
serve only 8K write (either because of space, or because of those file
limits), but application sent 12K.....iov_iter_gets truncated to 8K
and the write is successful. At least that's what O_APPEND and
RWF_APPEND behaves currently.
But in the current scheme there is no way to report number-of-bytes
copied in io-uring, so I had to fail such short-write in lower-layer
(which does not know whether it is talking to io_uring or aio).
Failing such short-write is perhaps fine for zone-appened, but is it
fine for generic file-append?

> > Downside:
> > - We may not be able to use RWF_APPEND, and need exposing a new
> > type/flag (RWF_INDIRECT_OFFSET etc.) user-space. Not sure if this
> > sounds outrageous, but is it OK to have uring-only flag which can be
> > combined with RWF_APPEND?
>
> Why ? Where is the problem ? O_APPEND/RWF_APPEND is currently meaningless for
> raw block device accesses. We could certainly define a meaning for these in the
> context of zoned block devices.
But application using O_APPEND/RWF_APPEND does not pass a pointer to
be updated by kernel.
While in kernel we would expect that, and may start writing something
which is not a pointer.

> I already commented on the need for first defining an interface (flags etc) and
> its semantic (e.g. do we allow short zone append or not ? What happens for
> regular files ? etc). Did you read my comment ? We really need to first agree on
> something to clarify what needs to be done.

I read and was planning to respond, sorry. But it seemed important to
get the clarity on the uring-interface, as this seems to decide how
this whole thing looks like (to application and to lower layers as
well).

> > -  Expensive compared to sending results in cqe itself. But I agree
> > that this may not be major, and only for one type of write.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research



-- 
Joshi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists