[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6419bda5a2b4d_59e87208ca@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 10:22:29 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/28] tcp: Support MSG_SPLICE_PAGES
David Howells wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > David Howells wrote:
> > > Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The commit message mentions MSG_SPLICE_PAGES as an internal flag.
> > > >
> > > > It can be passed from userspace. The code anticipates that and checks
> > > > preconditions.
> > >
> > > Should I add a separate field in the in-kernel msghdr struct for such internal
> > > flags? That would also avoid putting an internal flag in the same space as
> > > the uapi flags.
> >
> > That would work, if no cost to common paths that don't need it.
>
> Actually, it might be tricky. __ip_append_data() doesn't take a msghdr struct
> pointer per se. The "void *from" argument *might* point to one - but it
> depends on seeing a MSG_SPLICE_PAGES or MSG_ZEROCOPY flag, otherwise we don't
> know.
>
> Possibly this changes if sendpage goes away.
Is it sufficient to mask out this bit in tcp_sendmsg_locked and
udp_sendmsg if passed from userspace (and should be ignored), and pass
it through flags to callees like ip_append_data?
>
> > A not very pretty alternative would be to add an an extra arg to each
> > sendmsg handler that is used only when called from sendpage.
> >
> > There are a few other internal MSG_.. flags, such as
> > MSG_SENDPAGE_NOPOLICY. Those are all limited to sendpage, and ignored
> > in sendmsg, I think. Which would explain why it was clearly safe to
> > add them.
>
> Should those be moved across to the internal flags with MSG_SPLICE_PAGES?
I would not include that in this patch series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists