[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180118171251.GD24553@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:12:51 -0500
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/6] sock: MSG_PEEK support for
sk_error_queue
On (01/18/18 08:53), Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> The thing is : MSG_PEEK 'support' will also need SO_PEEK_OFF support.
sure, I'll drop the MSG_PEEK idea (which I wasnt very thrilled
about anyway)
> So lets properly design things, and not re-use legacy stuff that is
> proven to be not multi-thread ready and too complex.
>
> If you want to design a new channel of communication, do it, and
> maintain it.
My instinct is to go with the fixed size ancillary data- which itself
allows 2 options:
1. cmsg_data has a sock_extended_err preamble
with ee_origin = SO_EE_ORIGIN_ZEROCOPY_COOKIE (or similar),
and the ee_data is an array of 32 bit cookies (can pack at most 8
32-bit cookies, if we want to pack this into an skb->cb)
Using the sock_extended_err as preamble will allow this to be usable by
existing tcp zcopy applications (they can use the ee_origin to find
out if this a batch of cookies or the existing hi/lo values).
2. If we have the option of passing completion-notification up as ancillary
data on the pollin/recvmsg channel itself (instead of MSG_ERRQUEUE)
we dont have to try to retain "backward compat" to the
SO_EE_ORIGIN_ZEROCOPY API: we can just use a completely new data
struct for the notification and potentially pack more cookies into
48 bytes (RDS could be the first guinea pig for this- doesnt even
have to be done across all protocol families on day-1).
I think the shmem channel suggestion would be an optional optimization
that can be added later- it may not even be necessary, since most
applications will likely be sending *and* receiving data, so passing up
cookies with recvmsg should be "good enough" to save syscall overhead
for the common case.
I can work #2, if there are no objections to it.
--Sowmini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists