On 9/8/25 3:45 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 9/8/25 21:09, Brian Song wrote:
On 9/3/25 7:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:23PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/fuse-io-uring.html
As described in the kernel documentation, after FUSE
On 9/17/25 9:01 AM, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
On 15.09.25 07:43, Brian Song wrote:
Hi Hanna,
Hi Brian!
(Thanks for your heads-up!)
Stefan raised the above issue and proposed a preliminary solution: keep
closing the file descriptor in the delete section, but perform
umount separately for
On 9/16/25 3:08 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 30.08.2025 um 04:50 hat Brian Song geschrieben:
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to enable
FUSE-over-io_uring via the switch io-uring=on|off (disableby default).
It also implements the protocol handshake with the Linux
?
Additionally, what is the correct ordering between close(fd) and
umount, does one need to precede the other?
Thanks,
Brian
On 9/9/25 3:33 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:24PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
>> @@ -901,24 +941,15 @@ static void fuse_export
On 9/10/25 9:14 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 04:51:12PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
On 9/9/25 3:38 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:25PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
To test FUSE-over-io_uring, set the environment variable
FUSE_OVER_IO_URING=1. This
On 9/9/25 3:33 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:24PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
@@ -901,24 +941,15 @@ static void fuse_export_shutdown(BlockExport *blk_exp)
*/
g_hash_table_remove(exports, exp->mountpoint);
}
-}
-
-static v
On 9/9/25 3:38 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:25PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
To test FUSE-over-io_uring, set the environment variable
FUSE_OVER_IO_URING=1. This applies only when using the
'fuse' protocol.
$ FUSE_OVER_IO_URING=1 ./check -fuse
Suggested
On 9/9/25 10:48 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:00:55PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
On 9/3/25 6:53 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:22PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to enable
FUSE-over
On 9/3/25 7:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:23PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/fuse-io-uring.html
As described in the kernel documentation, after FUSE-over-io_uring
initialization and handshake, FUSE interacts with the kernel using
On 9/3/25 5:49 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 08:00:00AM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
We used fio to test a 1 GB file under both traditional FUSE and
FUSE-over-io_uring modes. The experiments were conducted with the
following iodepth and numjobs configurations: 1-1, 64-1, 1-4
On 9/3/25 6:53 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 10:50:22PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to enable
FUSE-over-io_uring via the switch io-uring=on|off (disableby default).
It also implements the protocol handshake with
and throughput.
Test results:
https://gist.github.com/hibriansong/a4849903387b297516603e83b53bbde4
On 8/29/25 10:50 PM, Brian Song wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a GSoC project. More details are available here:
> https://wiki.qemu.org/Google_Summer_of_Code_2025#FUSE-over-io_uring_expo
, to support multiple in-flight requests,
we configure each Ring Queue with FUSE_DEFAULT_RING_QUEUE_DEPTH
entries/requests.
Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
Signed-off-by: Brian Song
---
block/export/fuse.c | 310 +--
docs/tools/qemu
).
Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
Signed-off-by: Brian Song
---
block/export/fuse.c | 75 +++--
1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/export/fuse.c b/block/export/fuse.c
index 07f74fc8ec..ab2eb895ad 100644
requests (multiple ring entries)
- Add tests for FUSE-over-io_uring
More detail in the v2 cover letter:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2025-08/msg00140.html
And in the v1 cover letter:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2025-07/msg00280.html
Brian Song (4):
export/fuse
h the FUSE-over-io_uring handling functions.
Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
Signed-off-by: Brian Song
---
block/export/fuse.c | 457 ++--
1 file changed, 309 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/export/fuse.c b/block/exp
To test FUSE-over-io_uring, set the environment variable
FUSE_OVER_IO_URING=1. This applies only when using the
'fuse' protocol.
$ FUSE_OVER_IO_URING=1 ./check -fuse
Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
Signed-off-by: Brian Song
---
tests/qemu-iotests/chec
On 8/17/25 9:45 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:46:16PM -0400, Zhi Song wrote:
>> Due to kernel limitations, when the FUSE-over-io_uring option is
>> enabled,
>> you must create and assign nr_cpu IOThreads. For example:
>
> While it would be nice for the kernel to support a
On 8/19/25 7:23 PM, Brian Song wrote:
>
>
> On 8/19/25 6:26 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/19/25 03:15, Brian Song wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/18/25 7:04 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> O
On 8/19/25 6:26 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 8/19/25 03:15, Brian Song wrote:
On 8/18/25 7:04 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 8/17/25 01:13, Brian Song wrote:
On 8/14/25 11:46 PM, Brian Song wrote:
From: Brian Song
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to
On 8/18/25 7:04 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 8/17/25 01:13, Brian Song wrote:
On 8/14/25 11:46 PM, Brian Song wrote:
From: Brian Song
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to enable
or disable FUSE-over-io_uring via the switch io-uring=on|off (disable
by
On 8/14/25 11:46 PM, Brian Song wrote:
From: Brian Song
This patch adds a new export option for storage-export-daemon to enable
or disable FUSE-over-io_uring via the switch io-uring=on|off (disable
by default). It also implements the protocol handshake with the Linux
kernel during the FUSE
On 2025-08-04 7:33 a.m., Bernd Schubert wrote:
Hi Brian,
sorry for my late reply, just back from vacation and fighting through
my mails.
On 8/4/25 01:33, Brian Song wrote:
On 2025-08-01 12:09 p.m., Brian Song wrote:
Hi Bernd,
We are currently working on implementing termination support
On 2025-08-01 12:09 p.m., Brian Song wrote:
Hi Bernd,
We are currently working on implementing termination support for fuse-
over-io_uring in QEMU, and right now we are focusing on how to clean up
in-flight SQEs properly. Our main question is about how well the kernel
supports robust
nel's async cancel mechanism. We also realized libfuse manages
shutdowns differently, typically by signaling a thread via eventfd
rather than relying on async cancel.
Would love to hear your thoughts or suggestions on this!
Thanks,
Brian
On 7/17/25 2:03 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Brian Song writes:
>
>> This work provides an initial implementation of fuse-over-io_uring
>> support for QEMU export. According to the fuse-over-io_uring protocol
>> specification, the userspace side must create the same nu
On 7/20/25 12:13 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:38:23PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
>> This RFC patch represents an initial implementation of the FUSE-over-
>> io_uring Exports idea proposed for Google Summer of Code (2025) under
>> the QEM
On 7/21/25 9:51 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> nice work! Just some minor comments from my side below.
>
Really appreciate you taking the time to review my code and many thanks
for the helpful suggestions!
> On 7/16/25 20:38, Brian Song wrote:
>> [You don&#
On 7/20/25 8:53 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:38:24PM -0400, Brian Song wrote:
>> This work provides an initial implementation of fuse-over-io_uring
>> support for QEMU export. According to the fuse-over-io_uring protocol
>> specification, the users
CPUs. Therefore,
this initial version only works on single-core VMs (i.e., QEMU started
with -smp 1) or single core machine.
Brian Song (1):
block/export: FUSE-over-io_uring Support for QEMU FUSE Exports
block/export/fuse.c | 423 +--
docs/tools/qemu
support is still incomplete. In addition,
handling connection termination and managing the "drained" state of a
FUSE block export in QEMU remain as pending work.
Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf
Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
Signed-off-by: Brian Song
---
block/export/fuse.c
On 6/4/25 9:28 AM, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
FUSE allows creating multiple request queues by "cloning" /dev/fuse FDs
(via open("/dev/fuse") + ioctl(FUSE_DEV_IOC_CLONE)).
We can use this to implement multi-threading.
For configuration, we don't need any more information beyond the simple
array pr
r_buf size, which is FUSE_MAX_WRITE_BYTES (64 *
4k) minus FUSE_IN_PLACE_WRITE_BYTES (4 * 4k)) is smaller than
ring->max_payload_sz (which is 32 pages * 4k).
Do we need to increase the spillover_buf size, or is there any
other workaround?
Brian
On 6/4/25 9:28 AM, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
We proba
On 6/2/25 4:20 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 08:26:39AM -0400, Brian wrote:
On 5/28/25 3:09 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
io_uring may not be available at runtime due to system policies (e.g.
the io_uring_disabled sysctl) or creation could fail due to file
descriptor
On 5/28/25 3:09 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
io_uring may not be available at runtime due to system policies (e.g.
the io_uring_disabled sysctl) or creation could fail due to file
descriptor resource limits.
Handle failure scenarios as follows:
If another AioContext already has io_uring, then fai
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 08:34:32PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 25 Aug 2020 09:47:24 PM CEST, Brian Foster wrote:
> > My fio fallocates the entire file by default with this command. Is that
> > the intent of this particular test? I added --fallocate=none to my t
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 07:18:19PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 25 Aug 2020 06:54:15 PM CEST, Brian Foster wrote:
> > If I compare this 5m fio test between XFS and ext4 on a couple of my
> > systems (with either no prealloc or full file prealloc), I end up seeing
> &
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:24:58PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 21 Aug 2020 07:02:32 PM CEST, Brian Foster wrote:
> >> I was running fio with --ramp_time=5 which ignores the first 5 seconds
> >> of data in order to let performance settle, but if I remove that I ca
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 21 Aug 2020 01:42:52 PM CEST, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > On Fri 21 Aug 2020 01:05:06 PM CEST, Brian Foster
> > wrote:
> >>> > 1) off: for every write request QEMU initializes the cluster (64KB)
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:42:52PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 21 Aug 2020 01:05:06 PM CEST, Brian Foster wrote:
> >> > 1) off: for every write request QEMU initializes the cluster (64KB)
> >> > with fallocate(ZERO_RANGE) and then writes the 4KB of da
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:58:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:03:10PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > Cc: linux-xfs
> >
> > On Wed 19 Aug 2020 07:53:00 PM CEST, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > In any event, if you're seeing unclear or
t; > anything.
> >
> > What I got with my tests (using fio):
> >
> > - Using extent_size_hint didn't make any difference in my test case (I
> > do see a clear difference however with the test case described in
> > commit ffa244c84a).
>
> Hm, interestin
Thanks for taking a look at the patch and fixing the missing CC
addresses!
> Have you considered extending the 'migrate' command with a list of
> drives instead?
That was my original plan but I thought having information on whether a
device is shared or not could potentially be useful to other sy
43 matches
Mail list logo
