[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2878215.1674751289@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:41:29 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@...il.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/13] cifs: Add a function to read into an iter from a socket
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> > It shouldn't matter as the only problematic iterator is ITER_PIPE
> > (advancing that has side effects) - and splice_read is handled specially
> > by patch 4. The problem with splice_read with the way cifs works is that
> > it likes to subdivide its read/write requests across multiple reqs and
> > then subsubdivide them if certain types of failure occur. But you can't
> > do that with ITER_PIPE.
>
> I was thinking that even if ok at the moment it might be troublesome later.
> Somewhere I started writing a patch to put the iov_cache[] for user
> requests into the same structure as the iterator.
> Copying those might cause oddities.
Well, there is dup_iter(), but that copies the vector table, which isn't what
we want in a number of cases. You probably need to come up with a wrapper for
that.
But we copy iters by assignment in a lot of places. With regards to msg_hdr,
it might be worth giving it an iterator pointer rather than its own iterator.
I've just had a go at attempting to modify the code.
cifs_read_iter_from_socket() wants to copy the iterator and truncate the copy,
which makes things slightly trickier. For both of the call sites,
receive_encrypted_read() and cifs_readv_receive(), it can do the truncation
before calling cifs_read_iter_from_socket(), I think - but it may have to undo
the truncation afterwards.
> > I build an ITER_BVEC from ITER_PIPE, ITER_UBUF and ITER_IOVEC in the top
> > levels with pins inserted as appropriate and hand the ITER_BVEC down. For
> > user-backed iterators it has to be done this way because the I/O may get
> > shuffled off to a different thread.
>
> For sub-page sided transfers it is probably worth doing a bounce buffer
> copy of user requests - just to save all the complex page pinning code.
You can't avoid it for async DIO reads. But that sort of thing I'm intending
to do in netfslib.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists