[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZConr0f8e/mEL0Cl@ovpn-8-18.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:11:11 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
ZiyangZhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 00/17] io_uring/ublk: add generic IORING_OP_FUSED_CMD
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 07:36:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hello Jens and Guys,
>
> Add generic fused command, which can include one primary command and multiple
> secondary requests. This command provides one safe way to share resource between
> primary command and secondary requests, and primary command is always
> completed after all secondary requests are done, and resource lifetime
> is bound with primary command.
>
> With this way, it is easy to support zero copy for ublk/fuse device, and
> there could be more potential use cases, such as offloading complicated logic
> into userspace, or decouple kernel subsystems.
>
> Follows ublksrv code, which implements zero copy for loop, nbd and
> qcow2 targets with fused command:
>
> https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/tree/fused-cmd-zc-for-v6
>
> All three(loop, nbd and qcow2) ublk targets have supported zero copy by passing:
>
> ublk add -t [loop|nbd|qcow2] -z ....
>
> Also add liburing test case for covering fused command based on miniublk
> of blktest.
>
> https://github.com/ming1/liburing/tree/fused_cmd_miniublk_for_v6
>
> Performance improvement is obvious on memory bandwidth related workloads,
> such as, 1~2X improvement on 64K/512K BS IO test on loop with ramfs backing file.
> ublk-null shows 5X IOPS improvement on big BS test when the copy is avoided.
>
> Please review and consider for v6.4.
>
> V6:
> - re-design fused command, and make it more generic, moving sharing buffer
> as one plugin of fused command, so in future we can implement more plugins
> - document potential other use cases of fused command
> - drop support for builtin secondary sqe in SQE128, so all secondary
> requests has standalone SQE
> - make fused command as one feature
> - cleanup & improve naming
Hi Jens,
Can you apply ublk cleanup patches 7~11 on for-6.4? For others, we may
delay to 6.5, and I am looking at other approach too.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists