linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] io_uring: avoid uring_lock for IORING_SETUP_SINGLE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0be5cd99-9b0d-494a-8648-d767e06eb02d@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:29:39 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] io_uring: avoid uring_lock for
 IORING_SETUP_SINGLE_ISSUER

On 9/2/25 7:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/2/25 4:07 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, setting IORING_SETUP_SINGLE_ISSUER when creating
>> an io_uring doesn't actually enable any additional optimizations (aside
>> from being a requirement for IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN).
> 
> Indeed. It was supposed to enable future optimizations, but they
> didn't quite materialize.
> 
>> This series leverages IORING_SETUP_SINGLE_ISSUER's guarantee that only
>> one task submits SQEs to skip taking the uring_lock mutex in the
>> submission and task work paths.
> 
> Interesting, would indeed be great to kill the lock/unlock for each
> submit and local work run. I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow.

I just noticed that you forgot to CC io-uring@...r.kernel.org on
this posting. Would you mind re-sending and doing that? LKML isn't
really useful, for anything really, the key list to CC is the
io_uring one.

-- 
Jens Axboe