Message-ID: <YsLJFTj1i2NChX81@T590>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:03:49 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Ziyang Zhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] libubd: library for ubd(userspace block driver based on
 io_uring passthrough)

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:49:34PM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> On 2022/7/4 12:08, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 05:29:07PM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> >> On 2022/6/30 17:09, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:16:21PM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> >>>> Hi, Ming
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2022/6/29 19:33, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:22:23AM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Ming,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2022/6/27 23:29, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Ziyang,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 04:20:55PM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Ming,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We are learning your ubd code and developing a library: libubd for ubd.
> >>>>>>>> This article explains why we need libubd and how we design it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Related threads:
> >>>>>>>> (1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yk%2Fn7UtGK1vVGFX0@T590/
> >>>>>>>> (2) https://lore.kernel.org/all/YnDhorlKgOKiWkiz@T590/
> >>>>>>>> (3) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220509092312.254354-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/
> >>>>>>>> (4) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517055358.3164431-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Userspace block driver(ubd)[1], based on io_uring passthrough,
> >>>>>>>> allows users to define their own backend storage in userspace
> >>>>>>>> and provides block devices such as /dev/ubdbX.
> >>>>>>>> Ming Lei has provided kernel driver code: ubd_drv.c[2]
> >>>>>>>> and userspace code: ubdsrv[3].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ubd_drv.c simply passes all blk-mq IO requests
> >>>>>>>> to ubdsrv through io_uring sqes/cqes. We think the kernel code
> >>>>>>>> is pretty well-designed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ubdsrv is implemented by a single daemon
> >>>>>>>> and target(backend) IO handling(null_tgt and loop_tgt) 
> >>>>>>>> is embedded in the daemon. 
> >>>>>>>> While trying ubdsrv, we find ubdsrv is hard to be used 
> >>>>>>>> by our backend.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ubd is supposed to provide one generic framework for user space block
> >>>>>>> driver, and it can be used for doing lots of fun/useful thing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I understand correctly, this isn't same with your use case:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) your user space block driver isn't generic, and should be dedicated
> >>>>>>> for Alibaba's uses
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) your case has been there for long time, and you want to switch from other
> >>>>>>> approach(maybe tcmu) to ubd given ubd has better performance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, you are correct :)
> >>>>>> The idea of design libubd is actually from libtcmu.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We do have some userspace storage system as the IO handling backend, 
> >>>>>> and we need ubd to provide block drivers such as /dev/ubdbX for up layer client apps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think your motivation is that provides a complete user block driver to users
> >>>>>> and they DO NOT change any code.
> >>>>>> Users DO change their code using libubd for embedding libubd into the backend.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> First is description of our backend:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (1) a distributing system sends/receives IO requests 
> >>>>>>>>     through network.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (2) The system use RPC calls among hundreds of
> >>>>>>>>      storage servers and RPC calls are associated with data buffers
> >>>>>>>>      allocated from a memory pool.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (3) On each server for each device(/dev/vdX), our backend runs
> >>>>>>>>      many threads to handle IO requests and manage the device. 
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Second are reasons why ubdsrv is hard to use for us:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (1) ubdsrv requires the target(backend) issues IO requests
> >>>>>>>>     to the io_uring provided by ubdsrv but our backend 
> >>>>>>>>     uses something like RPC and does not support io_uring.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As one generic framework, the io command has to be io_uring
> >>>>>>> passthrough, and the io doesn't have to be handled by io_uring.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, our backend define its own communicating method.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But IMO io_uring is much more efficient, so I'd try to make async io
> >>>>>>> (io uring) as the 1st citizen in the framework, especially for new
> >>>>>>> driver.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But it can support other way really, such as use io_uring with eventfd,
> >>>>>>> the other userspace context can handle io, then wake up io_uring context
> >>>>>>> via eventfd. You may not use io_uring for handling io, but you still
> >>>>>>> need to communicate with the context for handling io_uring passthrough
> >>>>>>> command, and one mechanism(such as eventfd) has to be there for the
> >>>>>>> communication.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, eventfd may be helpful. 
> >>>>>> If you read my API, you may find ubdlib_complete_io_request().
> >>>>>> I think the backend io worker thread can call this function to tell the 
> >>>>>> ubd queue thread(the io_uring context in it) to commit the IO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ubdlib_complete_io_request() has to be called in the same pthread
> >>>>> context, that looks not flexible. When you handle IO via non-io_uring in the same
> >>>>> context, the cpu utilization in submission/completion side should be
> >>>>> higher than io_uring. And this way should be worse than the usage in
> >>>>> ubd/loop, that is why I suggest to use one io_uring for handling both
> >>>>> io command and io request if possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> ubdlib_complete_io_request() can be called in the io worker thread,
> >>>> not in the ubdsrv queue thread(with the io_uring context for handling uring_cmd).
> >>>>
> >>>> You can find ubd_runner.c in my libubd repo. There are many io worker
> >>>> threads for each ubdsrv queue to handle IO requests.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually this idea comes from tcmu-runner. The data flow is:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) in ubdsrv queue thread, io_uring_enter(): returns(IO reqs received from blk-mq)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) in ubdsrv queue thread, ubdsrv_reap_requests(): iterate on each cqe(with an IO req),
> >>>>    
> >>>>    for READ/WRITE requests, ubd_aio_queue_io() to enqueue the IO req into a io_queue
> >>>>    (each ubdsrv queue has one io_queue). This IO req's status is IO_HANDLING_ASYNC.
> >>>>     
> >>>>    for other simple(can be handled very quickly), 
> >>>>    handle it right now and call ubdlib_complete_io_request()
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) in ubdsrv queue thread, ubdsrv_commit_and_fetch(): iterate on all IO slots per ubdsrv queue
> >>>>    and setup sqe if one IO(IO completion) is ready to commit.
> >>>>    
> >>>>    Here, some IO slots are still IO_HANDLING_ASYNC so no sqe is generated for them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4)  in ubdsrv queue thread, io_uring_enter(): submit all sqes and wait for cqes
> >>>>     (io_uring_enter() will return after at least one IO req is received from blk-mq)
> >>>>    
> >>>> 5) When 3) or 4) happens, at the same time in ubdsrv queue IO worker threads:
> >>>>    each io worker thread try to deque and handle one IO req from io_queue per ubdsrv queue.
> >>>>    
> >>>>    After the IO worker handles the IO req(WRITE/READ), it calls ubdlib_complete_io_request()
> >>>>    This function can mark this  IO req's status to ready to commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> IO handling/completion and io_uring_enter() can happen at the same time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides, io_uring_enter can:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) block and wait for cqes until at least
> >>>> one blk-mq req comes from queue_rq()
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) submit sqes(with last IO completion and next fetch)
> >>>>
> >>>> so I have to consider how to notify io_uring about io completion 
> >>>> after io_uring_enter() is slept(block and wait for cqes).
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, that was exactly my question, :-)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In current version of ubd_runner(an async libubd target), I try to use an "unblock"
> >>>> io_uring_enter_timeout() and caller can set a timeout value for it.
> >>>> So IO completions happen after io_uring_enter_timeout() call can be committed
> >>>> by next io_uring_enter_timeout() call...
> >>>>
> >>>> But this is a very ugly implementation 
> >>>> because I may waste CPU on useless loops in ubdsrv queue thread if
> >>>> blk-mq reqs do not income frequently.
> >>>>
> >>>> You mentioned that eventfd may be helpful and I agree with you. :)
> >>>> I can register an eventfd in io_uring after ubd_aio_queue_io() and write the eventfd
> >>>> in  ubdlib_complete_io_request().
> >>>>
> >>>> I will fix my code.
> >>>
> >>> FYI, there is one example about using eventfd to wakeup io_uring, which
> >>> can be added to the library for your usecase:
> >>>
> >>> https://gist.github.com/1Jo1/6496d1b8b6b363c301271340e2eab95b
> >>
> >> Thanks, will take a view.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (2) ubdsrv forks a daemon and it takes over everything.
> >>>>>>>>     Users should type "list/stop/del" ctrl-commands to interact with
> >>>>>>>>     the daemon. It is inconvenient for our backend
> >>>>>>>>     because it has threads(from a C++ thread library) running inside.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, list/stop/del won't interact with the daemon, and the per-queue
> >>>>>>> pthread is only handling IO commands(io_uring passthrough) and IO request.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry I made a mistake.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mean from user's view, 
> >>>>>> he has to type list/del/stop from cmdlind to control the daemon.
> >>>>>> (I know the control flow is cmdline-->ubd_drv.c-->ubdsrv daemon).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a little weird if we try to make a ubd library.
> >>>>>> So I actually provides APIs in libubd for users to do these list/del/stop works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, that is fine to export APIs for admin purpose.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (3) ubdsrv PRE-allocates internal data buffers for each ubd device.
> >>>>>>>>     The data flow is:
> >>>>>>>>     bio vectors <-1-> ubdsrv data buffer <-2-> backend buffer(our RPC buffer).
> >>>>>>>>     Since ubdsrv does not export its internal data buffer to backend,
> >>>>>>>>     the second copy is unavoidable. 
> >>>>>>>>     PRE-allocating data buffer may not be a good idea for wasting memory
> >>>>>>>>     if there are hundreds of ubd devices(/dev/ubdbX).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The preallocation is just virtual memory, which is cheap and not pinned, but
> >>>>>>> ubdsrv does support buffer provided by io command, see:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/ming1/linux/commit/0a964a1700e11ba50227b6d633edf233bdd8a07d
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually I discussed on the design of pre-allocation in your RFC patch for ubd_drv
> >>>>>> but you did not reply :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I paste it here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "I am worried about the fixed-size(size is max io size, 256KiB) pre-allocated data buffers in UBDSRV
> >>>>>> may consume too much memory. Do you mean these pages can be reclaimed by sth like madvise()?
> >>>>>> If (1)swap is not set and (2)madvise() is not called, these pages may not be reclaimed."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I observed that your ubdsrv use posix_memalign() to pre-allocate data buffers, 
> >>>>>> and I have already noticed the memory cost while testing your ubdsrv with hundreds of /dev/ubdbX.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Usually posix_memalign just allocates virtual memory which is unlimited
> >>>>> in 64bit arch, and pages should be allocated until the buffer is read or write.
> >>>>> After the READ/WRITE is done, kernel still can reclaim the pages in this
> >>>>> virtual memory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In future, we still may optimize the memory uses via madvise, such as
> >>>>> MADV_DONTNEED, after the slot is idle for long enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, thanks for explanation. 
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another IMPORTANT problem is your commit:
> >>>>>> https://github.com/ming1/linux/commit/0a964a1700e11ba50227b6d633edf233bdd8a07d
> >>>>>> may be not helpful for WRITE requests if I understand correctly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider this data flow:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. ubdsrv commits an IO req(req1, a READ req).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. ubdsrv issues a sqe(UBD_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ), and sets io->addr to addr1.
> >>>>>>    addr1 is the addr of buffer user passed.
> >>>>>>    
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. ubd gets the sqe and commits req1, sets io->addr to addr1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. ubd gets IO req(req2, a WRITE req) from blk-mq(queue_rq) and commit a cqe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. ubd copys data to be written from biovec to addr1 in a task_work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6. ubdsrv gets the cqe and tell the IO target to handle req2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7. IO target handles req2. It is a WRITE req so target issues a io_uring write
> >>>>>>    cmd(with buffer set to addr1).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem happens in 5). You cannot know the actual data_len of an blk-mq req
> >>>>>> until you get one in queue_rq. So length of addr1 may be less than data_len.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far, the actual length of buffer has to be set as at least rq_max_blocks, since
> >>>>> we set it as ubd queue's max hw sectors. Yeah, you may argue memory
> >>>>> waste, but process virtual address is unlimited for 64bit arch, and
> >>>>> pages are allocated until actual read/write is started.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, since I allow users to config rq_max_blocks in libubd, 
> >>>> it's users' responsibility to ensure length of user buffers
> >>>> is at least rq_max_blocks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I agree on your commit:
> >>>> https://github.com/ming1/linux/commit/0a964a1700e11ba50227b6d633edf233bdd8a07d
> >>>>
> >>>> Provide WRITE buffer in advance(when sending COMMIT_AND_FETCH) seems OK :)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To better use ubd in more complicated scenarios, we have developed libubd.
> >>>>>>>> It does not assume implementation of backend and can be embedded into it.
> >>>>>>>> We refer to the code structure of tcmu-runner[4], 
> >>>>>>>> which includes a library(libtcmu) for users 
> >>>>>>>> to embed tcmu-runner inside backend's code. 
> >>>>>>>> It:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (1) Does not fork/pthread_create but embedded in backend's threads
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is because your backend may not use io_uring, I guess.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But it is pretty easy to move the decision of creating pthread to target
> >>>>>>> code, which can be done in the interface of .prepare_target().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the library should not create any thread if we want a libubd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I Agree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (2) Provides libubd APIs for backend to add/delete ubd devices 
> >>>>>>>>     and fetch/commit IO requests
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The above could be the main job of libubd.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> indeed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (3) simply passes backend-provided data buffers to ubd_drv.c in kernel,
> >>>>>>>>     since the backend actually has no knowledge 
> >>>>>>>>     on incoming data size until it gets an IO descriptor.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can understand your requirement, not look at your code yet, but libubd
> >>>>>>> should be pretty thin from function viewpoint, and there are lots of common
> >>>>>>> things to abstract/share among all drivers, please see recent ubdsrv change:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/commits/master
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in which:
> >>>>>>> 	- coroutine is added for handling target io
> >>>>>>> 	- the target interface(ubdsrv_tgt_type) has been cleaned/improved for
> >>>>>>> 	supporting complicated target
> >>>>>>> 	- c++ support
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I have read your coroutine code but I am not an expert of C++ 20.:(
> >>>>>> I think it is actually target(backend) design and ubd should not assume 
> >>>>>> how the backend handle IOs. 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The work ubd in userspace has to be done is:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) give some IO descriptors to backend, such as ubd_get_io_requests()
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) get IO completion form backend, such as ubd_complete_io_requests()
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or the user provides/registers two callbacks: handle_io_async() and
> >>>>> io_complete(), the former is called when one request comes from ubd
> >>>>> driver, the latter(optional) is called when one io is done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also you didn't mention how you notify io_uring about io completion after
> >>>>> io_uring_enter() is slept if your backend code doesn't use io_uring to
> >>>>> handle io.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think one communication mechanism(such as eventfd) is needed for your
> >>>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, I will try eventfd with io_uring.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> IMO, libubd isn't worth of one freshly new project, and it could be integrated
> >>>>>>> into ubdsrv easily. The potential users could be existed usersapce
> >>>>>>> block driver projects.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, so many userspace storage systems can use ubd!
> >>>>>> You may look at tcmu-runner. It:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) provides a library(libtcmu.c) for those who have a existing backend.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) provides a runner(main.c in tcmu-runner) like your ubdsrv 
> >>>>>>    for those who just want to run it. 
> >>>>>>    And the runner is build on top of libtcmu.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you don't object, I am happy to co-work with you to add the support
> >>>>>>> for libubd in ubdsrv, then we can avoid to invent a wheel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thinking of further, I'd suggest to split ubdsrv into two parts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) libubdsrv
> >>>>> - provide APIs like what you did in libubd
> >>>>> - provide API for notify io_uring(handling io command) that one io is
> >>>>> completed, and the API should support handling IO from other context
> >>>>> (not same with the io_uring context for handling io command).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) ubd target
> >>>>> - built on libubdsrv, such as ubd command is built on libubdsrv, and
> >>>>> specific target implementation is built on the library too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It shouldn't be hard to work towards this direction, and I guess this
> >>>>> way should make current target implementation more clean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this is like tcmu-runner's structure: a libtcmu and some target
> >>>> Thanks, Ming.  Glad to co-work with you.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will take your advice and improve libubd(the communication mechanism, maybe eventfd).
> >>>
> >>> I have added libublk branch for working towards this direction, if we
> >>> cowork on libublk, please write patch against this branch, then I can
> >>> apply your patch directly.
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/tree/libublk
> >>
> >> Ok, but It concerns me that libubdsrv may change current ubdsrv project's structure a lot
> >> because:
> >> 1) target implementation will be built on top of libubdsrv and the target
> >>    should create pthread(ubdsrv loop) itself.
> >>
> >> 2) have to remove pthread/process(daemon) in current ubdsrv to build libubdsrv.
> >>    It was really a hard job. :-(
> > 
> > Both the two are not hard to do, and turns out that making libubdsrv is actually
> > one big cleanup.
> > 
> > All these works[1] are basically done:
> > 
> > 1) libublksrv
> > - built .so and .a are under lib/
> > - exported header file is include/ublksrv.h
> > - so any other application can make ublk device against this library
> > - eventfd notification is added too, so io handling doesn't have to
> > be done via io_uring, one callback of ->handle_event(), and two APIs
> > are added for this support
> > 
> > 2) ublk/ubd utility
> > - built against libublksrv, meantime it uses the private header of the
> > library too, which is fine, since the two are in same project
> > 
> > 3) two examples
> > - demo_null.c: one < 200 LOC standalone example to show how to make
> > a ubd/null block device against libublksrv
> > 
> > - demo_event.c: one simple standalone example(~300LOC) to make one ublk
> > disk by handling io via another pthread(not by io_uring) against
> > libublksrv
> > 
> > Any comments/feedback/tests are welcome.
> > 
> > 
> > [1] libublk
> > https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/tree/libublk
> > 
> 
> Hi Ming,
> 
> Thanks for your libublk code.
> You almost have done everything we discussed before :)
> 
> One small question:
> Could you please write another demo_event_loop.c:

That is actually easy, but I'd suggest you to do it, and I can apply
the patch on ublksrv tree once it is ready. It is also one good chance
for you to understand the recent change of libublksrv.

I have written one loop based on io_uring, which performs very well.

The eventfd interface is actually for existed project which can't use
io_uring or io_uring may not implement the function, that should be
your use case.

> 
> 1) based on demo_event.c(handling io via another pthread)
>    but the loop backend is a fd(file). User calls pwrite/pread with the fd.
>    
> 2) User-provided buffer: data buffer is allocated by backend
>    (not posix_memalign() in ublksrv.c)
>    and it is passed to ublksrv(finally to ubd_drv in kernel) by libublksrv's API
>    ( maybe passed as an arg to ublksrv_complete_io()? )
> 
> 3) I think pread/pwrite should be in demo_event_real_io_handler_fn() 
>    for all IOs of each pending list. Am I correct?

Exactly, the pthread of demo_event_real_io_handler_fn is for handling
io from /dev/ublkbN.

> 
> 4) Shall we consider multiple pthreads calling demo_event_real_io_handler_fn()
>    (they are io worker threads actually)
>    so we can handle IO concurrently?

That can be done, but sync among these pthreads have to be dealt with
well.

> 
> 
> I think designing more examples helps us design libublk's API more clearly.

The example of demo_event.c is enough for implementing the loop/event.


Thanks,
Ming

Powered by blists - more mailing lists