Message-ID: <YnoWbRkuNLe39a0b@T590>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 15:38:21 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        ZiyangZhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ubd: add io_uring based userspace block driver

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 09:29:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/9/22 8:58 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 10:09:10AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 5/9/22 3:23 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> This is the driver part of userspace block driver(ubd driver), the other
> >>> part is userspace daemon part(ubdsrv)[1].
> >>>
> >>> The two parts communicate by io_uring's IORING_OP_URING_CMD with one
> >>> shared cmd buffer for storing io command, and the buffer is read only for
> >>> ubdsrv, each io command is indexed by io request tag directly, and
> >>> is written by ubd driver.
> >>>
> >>> For example, when one READ io request is submitted to ubd block driver, ubd
> >>> driver stores the io command into cmd buffer first, then completes one
> >>> IORING_OP_URING_CMD for notifying ubdsrv, and the URING_CMD is issued to
> >>> ubd driver beforehand by ubdsrv for getting notification of any new io request,
> >>> and each URING_CMD is associated with one io request by tag.
> >>>
> >>> After ubdsrv gets the io command, it translates and handles the ubd io
> >>> request, such as, for the ubd-loop target, ubdsrv translates the request
> >>> into same request on another file or disk, like the kernel loop block
> >>> driver. In ubdsrv's implementation, the io is still handled by io_uring,
> >>> and share same ring with IORING_OP_URING_CMD command. When the target io
> >>> request is done, the same IORING_OP_URING_CMD is issued to ubd driver for
> >>> both committing io request result and getting future notification of new
> >>> io request.
> >>>
> >>> Another thing done by ubd driver is to copy data between kernel io
> >>> request and ubdsrv's io buffer:
> >>>
> >>> 1) before ubsrv handles WRITE request, copy the request's data into
> >>> ubdsrv's userspace io buffer, so that ubdsrv can handle the write
> >>> request
> >>>
> >>> 2) after ubsrv handles READ request, copy ubdsrv's userspace io buffer
> >>> into this READ request, then ubd driver can complete the READ request
> >>>
> >>> Zero copy may be switched if mm is ready to support it.
> >>>
> >>> ubd driver doesn't handle any logic of the specific user space driver,
> >>> so it should be small/simple enough.
> >>
> >> This is pretty interesting! Just one small thing I noticed, since you
> >> want to make sure batching is Good Enough:
> >>
> >>> +static blk_status_t ubd_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >>> +		const struct blk_mq_queue_data *bd)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct ubd_queue *ubq = hctx->driver_data;
> >>> +	struct request *rq = bd->rq;
> >>> +	struct ubd_io *io = &ubq->ios[rq->tag];
> >>> +	struct ubd_rq_data *data = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);
> >>> +	blk_status_t res;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (ubq->aborted)
> >>> +		return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* this io cmd slot isn't active, so have to fail this io */
> >>> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(io->flags & UBD_IO_FLAG_ACTIVE)))
> >>> +		return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* fill iod to slot in io cmd buffer */
> >>> +	res = ubd_setup_iod(ubq, rq);
> >>> +	if (res != BLK_STS_OK)
> >>> +		return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> >>> +
> >>> +	blk_mq_start_request(bd->rq);
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* mark this cmd owned by ubdsrv */
> >>> +	io->flags |= UBD_IO_FLAG_OWNED_BY_SRV;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * clear ACTIVE since we are done with this sqe/cmd slot
> >>> +	 *
> >>> +	 * We can only accept io cmd in case of being not active.
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	io->flags &= ~UBD_IO_FLAG_ACTIVE;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * run data copy in task work context for WRITE, and complete io_uring
> >>> +	 * cmd there too.
> >>> +	 *
> >>> +	 * This way should improve batching, meantime pinning pages in current
> >>> +	 * context is pretty fast.
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	task_work_add(ubq->ubq_daemon, &data->work, TWA_SIGNAL);
> >>> +
> >>> +	return BLK_STS_OK;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> It'd be better to use bd->last to indicate what kind of signaling you
> >> need here. TWA_SIGNAL will force an immediate transition if the app is
> >> running in userspace, which may not be what you want. Also see:
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-5.19/io_uring&id=e788be95a57a9bebe446878ce9bf2750f6fe4974
> >>
> >> But regardless of signaling needed, you don't need it except if bd->last
> >> is true. Would need a commit_rqs() as well, but that's trivial.
> > 
> > Good point, I think we may add non-last request via task_work_add(TWA_NONE),
> > and only notify via TWA_SIGNAL_NO_IPI for bd->last.
> 
> Yep, I think that'd be the way to go.
> 
> >> More importantly, what prevents ubq->ubq_daemon from going away after
> >> it's been assigned? I didn't look at the details, but is this relying on
> >> io_uring being closed to cancel pending requests? That should work, but
> > 
> > I think no way can prevent ubq->ubq_daemon from being killed by 'kill -9',
> > even though ubdsrv has handled SIGTERM. That is why I suggest to add
> > one service for removing all ubd devices before shutdown:
> > 
> > https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/blob/devel/README
> 
> Right, you can't prevent a task from getting killed. But what you do
> know is that file descriptors get closed when the task goes away, and if
> you're integrated into io_uring in terms of how request are handled,
> then the closing of the io_ring ring descriptor should wait-for/cancel
> pending requests. If done right, that could perhaps exclude the issue of
> having the stored task become invalid.
> 
> I haven't looked too closely at it all yet, so the above may not be a
> viable approach. Or maybe it will... It's how io_uring itself does it.
> 
> > All the commands of UBD_IO_FETCH_REQ or UBD_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ have
> > been submitted to driver, I understand io_uring can't cancel them,
> > please correct me if it is wrong.
> 
> Right, any storage IO can't get canceled if it's already hit the block
> layer or further down. So you end up waiting for them, which is fine
> too.
> 
> > One solution I thought of is to use one watchdog to check if ubq->ubq_daemon
> > is dead, then abort whole device if yes. Or any suggestion?
> 
> You'd still need to ensure that it remains valid.
> 
> >> we need some way to ensure that ->ubq_daemon is always valid here.
> > 
> > Good catch.
> > 
> > get_task_struct() should be used for assigning ubq->ubq_daemon.
> 
> Yep, that could work too as long as it doesn't introduce a weird loopy
> dependency. Since it's just the task_struct itself, I think it'd be fine
> and the simplest solution. This is a setup thing, and not per-io?

Yeah, assigning ->ubq_daemon is done in the current context before disk
is added, so it is setup thing.


Thanks,
Ming

Powered by blists - more mailing lists