[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99c064d2-652a-8e3c-eacb-23cb46b3e3a6@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:49:09 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
asml.silence@...il.com, leit@...com, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
matthieu.baerts@...sares.net, marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets
On 4/6/23 10:41?AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 07:43:26AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> This patchset creates the initial plumbing for a io_uring command for
>> sockets.
>>
>> For now, create two uring commands for sockets, SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCOUTQ
>> and SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ. They are similar to ioctl operations
>> SIOCOUTQ and SIOCINQ. In fact, the code on the protocol side itself is
>> heavily based on the ioctl operations.
>
> Do you have asynchronous operations in mind for a future patch? The
> io_uring command infrastructure makes more sense for operations that
> return EIOCBQUEUED, otherwise it doesn't have much benefit over ioctl.
Basically nothing returns EIOCBQUEUED, it's mostly sync/poll driven on
the networking side. The primary use case for this is with direct
descriptors, as you can't do get/setsockopt with those. And that means
you'd then need to instantiate a regular descriptor first and then
register it, rather than keep it all direct from the start.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists