Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove kiocb ki_complete
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@kvack.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
References: <20200708222637.23046-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20200709101705.GA2095@infradead.org>
 <20200709111036.GA12769@casper.infradead.org>
 <20200709132611.GA1382@infradead.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <e03b9ae9-edf7-3489-7641-8e62e51ad77b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:55:53 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200709132611.GA1382@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/9/20 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I really don't like this series at all.  If saves a single pointer
>>> but introduces a complicated machinery that just doesn't follow any
>>> natural flow.  And there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it to
>>> start with.
>>
>> Jens doesn't want the kiocb to grow beyond a single cacheline, and we
>> want the ability to set the loff_t in userspace for an appending write,
>> so the plan was to replace the ki_complete member in kiocb with an
>> loff_t __user *ki_posp.
>>
>> I don't think it's worth worrying about growing kiocb, personally,
>> but this seemed like the easiest way to make room for a new pointer.
> 
> The user offset pointer has absolutely no business in the the kiocb
> itself - it is a io_uring concept which needs to go into the io_kiocb,

Nobody disagrees on that.

> which has 14 bytes left in the last cache line in my build.  It would
> fit in very well there right next to the result and user pointer.

Per-op data should not spill into the io_kiocb itself. And I absolutely
hate arguments like "oh there's still 14 bytes in there", because then
there's 6, then there's none, and now we're going into the next
cacheline. io_kiocb is already too fat, it should be getting slimmer,
not bigger. And the append write stuff is not nearly interesting
enough to a) grow io_kiocb, b) warrant a special case for op private
data in the io_kiocb itself.


-- 
Jens Axboe