[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200709132611.GA1382@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:26:11 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove kiocb ki_complete
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,
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists