[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3430f8f-8e38-445b-a3e8-f7c0d0bd1f00@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:38:00 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, "David S . Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] io_uring cmd for tx timestamps
On 6/4/25 13:06, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/4/25 2:42 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Vadim Fedorenko suggested to add an alternative API for receiving
>> tx timestamps through io_uring. The series introduces io_uring socket
>> cmd for fetching tx timestamps, which is a polled multishot request,
>> i.e. internally polling the socket for POLLERR and posts timestamps
>> when they're arrives. For the API description see Patch 5.
>>
>> It reuses existing timestamp infra and takes them from the socket's
>> error queue. For networking people the important parts are Patch 1,
>> and io_uring_cmd_timestamp() from Patch 5 walking the error queue.
>>
>> It should be reasonable to take it through the io_uring tree once
>> we have consensus, but let me know if there are any concerns.
>
> Still looks fine to me - is there a liburing test case as well?
Just a hacky adaptation of a selftest for now and requires tc
incantations either way.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists