[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e3c20e0-a0be-eaf3-b288-c3c8fa31d1fa@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:57:53 +0800
From: Ziyang Zhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 16/16] block: ublk_drv: apply io_uring FUSED_CMD for
supporting zero copy
On 2023/3/28 23:09, Ming Lei wrote:
> Apply io_uring fused command for supporting zero copy:
>
[...]
>
> @@ -1374,7 +1533,12 @@ static int ublk_ch_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
> if (!ubq || ub_cmd->q_id != ubq->q_id)
> goto out;
>
> - if (ubq->ubq_daemon && ubq->ubq_daemon != current)
> + /*
> + * The fused command reads the io buffer data structure only, so it
> + * is fine to be issued from other context.
> + */
> + if ((ubq->ubq_daemon && ubq->ubq_daemon != current) &&
> + (cmd_op != UBLK_IO_FUSED_SUBMIT_IO))
> goto out;
>
Hi Ming,
What is your use case that fused io_uring cmd is issued from another thread?
I think it is good practice to operate one io_uring instance in one thread
only.
Regards,
Zhang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists