| Message ID | cover.1666346426.git.asml.silence@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fail io_uring zc with sockets not supporting it | expand |
Hi Pavel, > Some sockets don't care about msghdr::ubuf_info and would execute the > request by copying data. Such fallback behaviour was always a pain in > my experience, so we'd rather want to fail such requests and have a more > robust api in the future. > > Mark struct socket that support it with a new SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC flag. > I'm not entirely sure it's the best place for the flag but at least > we don't have to do a bunch of extra dereferences in the hot path. I'd give the flag another name that indicates msg_ubuf and have a 2nd flag that can indicate support for SO_ZEROCOPY in sk_setsockopt() The SO_ZEROCOPY version is also provided by AF_RDS. metze
On 10/21/22 11:27, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: > Hi Pavel, > >> Some sockets don't care about msghdr::ubuf_info and would execute the >> request by copying data. Such fallback behaviour was always a pain in >> my experience, so we'd rather want to fail such requests and have a more >> robust api in the future. >> >> Mark struct socket that support it with a new SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC flag. >> I'm not entirely sure it's the best place for the flag but at least >> we don't have to do a bunch of extra dereferences in the hot path. > > I'd give the flag another name that indicates msg_ubuf and Could be renamed, e.g. SOCK_SUPPORT_MSGHDR_UBUF or maybe SOCK_SUPPORT_EXTERNAL_UBUF > have a 2nd flag that can indicate support for SO_ZEROCOPY in sk_setsockopt() There is absolutely no reason to introduce a second flag here, it has nothing to do with SO_ZEROCOPY. > The SO_ZEROCOPY version is also provided by AF_RDS.
Am 21.10.22 um 12:42 schrieb Pavel Begunkov: > On 10/21/22 11:27, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >> Hi Pavel, >> >>> Some sockets don't care about msghdr::ubuf_info and would execute the >>> request by copying data. Such fallback behaviour was always a pain in >>> my experience, so we'd rather want to fail such requests and have a more >>> robust api in the future. >>> >>> Mark struct socket that support it with a new SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC flag. >>> I'm not entirely sure it's the best place for the flag but at least >>> we don't have to do a bunch of extra dereferences in the hot path. >> >> I'd give the flag another name that indicates msg_ubuf and > > Could be renamed, e.g. SOCK_SUPPORT_MSGHDR_UBUF That's good or SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC_MSGHDR_UBUF. >> have a 2nd flag that can indicate support for SO_ZEROCOPY in sk_setsockopt() > > There is absolutely no reason to introduce a second flag here, it has > nothing to do with SO_ZEROCOPY. I meant as a separate change to replace the hard coded logic in sk_setsockopt()... But I don't care much about it, it's unlikely that I ever want to use SO_ZEROCOPY... metze
Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net.git (master) by Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>: On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:16:38 +0100 you wrote: > Some sockets don't care about msghdr::ubuf_info and would execute the > request by copying data. Such fallback behaviour was always a pain in > my experience, so we'd rather want to fail such requests and have a more > robust api in the future. > > Mark struct socket that support it with a new SOCK_SUPPORT_ZC flag. > I'm not entirely sure it's the best place for the flag but at least > we don't have to do a bunch of extra dereferences in the hot path. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [for-6.1,1/3] net: flag sockets supporting msghdr originated zerocopy https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/e993ffe3da4b - [for-6.1,2/3] io_uring/net: fail zc send when unsupported by socket https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/edf81438799c - [for-6.1,3/3] io_uring/net: fail zc sendmsg when unsupported by socket https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/cc767e7c6913 You are awesome, thank you!
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 20:40:38 +0000 patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org wrote: > Here is the summary with links: > - [for-6.1,1/3] net: flag sockets supporting msghdr originated zerocopy > https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/e993ffe3da4b > - [for-6.1,2/3] io_uring/net: fail zc send when unsupported by socket > https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/edf81438799c > - [for-6.1,3/3] io_uring/net: fail zc sendmsg when unsupported by socket > https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/cc767e7c6913 Ugh, ignore, looks like we forgot to drop this series from our PW and bot thought we've applied it when we forwarded the tree.