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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF407C433F5 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 16:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1358126AbhLCQeZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:34:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53254 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1353221AbhLCQeX (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:34:23 -0500 Received: from mail-ua1-x92d.google.com (mail-ua1-x92d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1CF0C061751 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:30:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua1-x92d.google.com with SMTP id ay21so6466335uab.12 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:30:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fy6nFfjADw6fr8YI8a7lhyf+7ziGDaRPP8bieG/IP5k=; b=U0hdU6lIyPXdwQfpH3O2TsoxFPwgmk/EQR7bf+BguobfjjsTaPzo/xXepEyXbpgBpm 0XmdjKHmqxI4pIGbwNnjVVkGY8R3NAwdJARNAWqSDEcv3kHiIeVjmO23yneUZG1BPZQK p+DQ0iLSMVfK15FPrwV6xU7fUziB2e5f21qUpiWXEeosvVDivvAJf6lX6cYnupY6SvMX 8D68n2lV3lSdZ72dhYgwV1s21v6RktQrVJ8nLALQD0Yfyt9DvwcsOdX1vmKCpdKGBYuQ aFoum+p9Qc38DaE9qDg5CQ5mJtBwJm2x5zFe5gLBcScxC3hsv+5NA65IxmjQdC8tK9Lk OYxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fy6nFfjADw6fr8YI8a7lhyf+7ziGDaRPP8bieG/IP5k=; b=26SMXrEvL0m4o+bCdHTRmt9H/habChH4GNl1eJXxtgL862wRSMCb3Mba/cTNrxn+1t sT6pbCnHXjMkiTW15b+Le8K1i3qhf8w59sTmJuv7ZCJEnnkLhIWhba0Fx6ZvQlkx/lEN MrgAlGJhdfRab4NFolepd2TW4Bv471mqXlZyyPVjDSLRM+8Y/OohmjpQW/sCHAukm1bJ EATnq/9o59hrpLhFwsLqKgBi8nLxzs7Gtd5+ovTH1kKQMLP8aBSNnLvfftPY5nsqsOiw 0uwsi0ZRDjBD4QgH6DOxyWtqNTGMG7VqimHlS4jsoGLx6QbLvFMfbfSgN2hh0do9LUFE LwHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306mkQI/Jk9n1u/4l1Zu44AdNU1wv9jE0mG1AwPfnawXZ9WbkI5 XS4nPj6yaqoE3Wj9OqJBdxh6Rc88IdY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDT6bMnJD0P8O4puSN4C9DcK86wDHm6Bi70ZYAhl9a5Cerqpj6scE3Jq4uF+Rhidg/ufys8g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:5109:: with SMTP id bm9mr22186989vsb.10.1638549058745; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk1-f174.google.com (mail-vk1-f174.google.com. [209.85.221.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm513048vkn.55.2021.12.03.08.30.57 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk1-f174.google.com with SMTP id e27so2205021vkd.4 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:1350:: with SMTP id f16mr24382684vkp.10.1638549057130; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0d82f4e2-730f-4888-ec82-2354ffa9c2d8@gmail.com> <6e07fb0c-075b-4072-273b-f9d55ba1e1dd@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Willem de Bruijn Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:30:21 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring zerocopy send To: Pavel Begunkov Cc: Willem de Bruijn , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski , Jonathan Lemon , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , David Ahern , Jens Axboe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:19 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > On 12/2/21 21:25, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >>> What if the ubuf pool can be found from the sk, and the index in that > >>> pool is passed as a cmsg? > >> > >> It looks to me that ubufs are by nature is something that is not > >> tightly bound to a socket (at least for io_uring API in the patchset), > >> it'll be pretty ugly: > >> > >> 1) io_uring'd need to care to register the pool in the socket. Having > >> multiple rings using the same socket would be horrible. It may be that > >> it doesn't make much sense to send in parallel from multiple rings, but > >> a per thread io_uring is a popular solution, and then someone would > >> want to pass a socket from one thread to another and we'd need to support > >> it. > >> > >> 2) And io_uring would also need to unregister it, so the pool would > >> store a list of sockets where it's used, and so referencing sockets > >> and then we need to bind it somehow to io_uring fixed files or > >> register all that for tracking referencing circular dependencies. > >> > >> 3) IIRC, we can't add a cmsg entry from the kernel, right? May be wrong, > >> but if so I don't like exposing basically io_uring's referencing through > >> cmsg. And it sounds io_uring would need to parse cmsg then. > >> > >> > >> A lot of nuances :) I'd really prefer to pass it on per-request basis, > > > > Ok > > > >> it's much cleaner, but still haven't got what's up with msghdr > >> initialisation... > > > > And passing the struct through multiple layers of functions. > > If you refer to ip_make_skb(ubuf) -> __ip_append_data(ubuf), I agree > it's a bit messier, will see what can be done. If you're about > msghdr::msg_ubuf, for me it's more like passing a callback, > which sounds like a normal thing to do. Thanks, I do mean the first. Also, small nit now that it comes up again msghdr::msg_ubuf is not plain C. I would avoid that pseudo C++ notation (in the subject line of 3/12) > > >> Maybe, it's better to add a flags field, which would include > >> "msg_control_is_user : 1" and whether msghdr includes msg_iocb, msg_ubuf, > >> and everything else that may be optional. Does it sound sane? > > > > If sendmsg takes the argument, it will just have to be initialized, I think. > > > > Other functions are not aware of its existence so it can remain > > uninitialized there. > > Got it, need to double check, but looks something like 1/12 should > be as you outlined. > > And if there will be multiple optional fields that have to be > initialised, we would be able to hide all the zeroing under a > single bitmask. E.g. instead of > > msg->field1 = NULL; > ... > msg->fieldN = NULL; > > It may look like > > msg->mask = 0; // HAS_FIELD1 | HAS_FIELDN; Makes sense to me. This patch series only adds one field, so you can leave the optimization for a possible future separate patch series?