From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62ED7C43381 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFCD218E0 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="tmuIeoDd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726571AbfCPQ1T (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:27:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:37261 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726512AbfCPQ1T (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:27:19 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id 8so5004980pfr.4 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AA4pmMru0+BGpyqIaYKhd0wn45QUEyog2xvsO0lEbmA=; b=tmuIeoDdZ6kD/WBqxPlHyrAhWuqWoBo4OGvTShWwMb/v3B5RUicMQJGiBwJilifTeA H8AOWCRCH9TEiI2EqOrXXNd1a3zDOY/fkmTs7iuMg2WI2bGL3hLARyO+/cL1R3veW5FE XutHY25Vbp0P49t0bcG2w43q78ca1e8QfiqP30cncyCutJX13RUxBzOsZjymLSsnjZcs 9c0aIyCK3aKJotF6l2CIH5oswsctWZJslpTzOuyzKCxQsXGW6FE26cqY0ratv+Wva6p5 ftD4MEycGeVmQIDfgI5d2P/U34q+y8Tjt+ysFk5E2d/hY9l9d8/yhWHZG5GT780Cx9OO kKDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AA4pmMru0+BGpyqIaYKhd0wn45QUEyog2xvsO0lEbmA=; b=qTg8alCcVmFo9pV2fnz3UHfcAmtvIGvdl06tT8TdTndB70cxqGSi4Kd9qcb++hqjo/ E30H563xtRT9UHs2ai50eL+WpjJmcx/ipgCQAkPJKNoWA1IC6GGDFgjKgzvDa9wfl1jv xjiKgdEAm8GAeHd5MrI5eNyNc+iGq5nSvDrj28VPd+9EYrWrm+P242LwZ4Xt5QCcHeif 23120rhwXeMQiMQfAjolvImT6Y2mTL0fESSKQY+Ia5xG9HUbhxAQy4oNEagEgcTjxkOX EKcJBq9GjNNCCSmBfn9iJylOMhd0rZ1Tb5Z1JlsswgdwCbwEE4p2oUcrJilhYjtSlZHW bPuA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqjQfq1ZlbPNXJPfmlR9HWGEf8WwsjVJPDM1AWeJ7pZxQYkpIf NYKyK2dFZcGTz6k5OhtFXFzwiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpdI6cUgTaxcmbdzFaq+yC/Iuu9/FOIeAOm4rDebK191/Mmmsoyp/IjcS4p03NZZIzwN7oJQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b70c:: with SMTP id d12mr10701196pls.88.1552753638506; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.121] (66.29.188.166.static.utbb.net. [66.29.188.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v22sm11620372pfa.49.2019.03.16.09.27.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Mar 2019 09:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: add io_uring_event cache hit information To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-fsdevel , linux-block , Al Viro References: <20190315145938.21516-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190315145938.21516-4-axboe@kernel.dk> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 10:27:15 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 3/15/19 7:34 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> Linus, curious on your opinion on this one. I had this as part of the >> original series, but removed it from the pull request due to the >> mincore etc discussions. > > I'd rather not have new ways to leak cache information, and in fact > already the IOCB_NOWAIT is a bit questionable for that. But afaik, the > non-O_DIRECT paths don't even support it to begin with for some > filesystems. For the most popular it works fine, though. For buffered async IO it'd be nice to have it be fully reliable, so we can ensure we punt when we have to. Currently for writes, we just ignore it and punt to async, since it doesn't work at all there. The latter should be fixable. On the hint, I hear ya, that's what I figured. I'll drop the patch for now. > Wasn't the whole point of this io_ring that we'd move *away* from > direct block access and O_DIRECT? > > I'm seeing a lot of stuff that looks like just "more of the same old > O_DIRECT garbage" that seems to be all about thinking that IO doesn't > cache. > > Haven't we gotten over that already? It was one of the arguments you > used for io_ring to begin with. There are still folks that use it, even if O_DIRECT is nasty. If you want to get peak performance, there's no way around it. That doesn't mean that io_uring is in any way centered around O_DIRECT at all, it isn't. At its core, it's "just" an efficient delivery mechanism for submissions and completions. Not sure what "stuff" you are referring to, the patches in this short series? That's not centered around block devices at all, works just fine for files. The bvec iterator is what io_uring uses for fixed buffers, it's not exclusive to block devices at all. -- Jens Axboe