From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: lizetao <lizetao1@huawei.com>, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc: "io-uring@vger.kernel.org" <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] io_uring: add support for fchmod
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 09:26:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d6e9cf93-670c-4700-899a-984e951a421c@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f309e91581b4c5ca664d4685f1045a3@huawei.com>
On 12/3/24 6:54 PM, lizetao wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 10:44 PM
>> To: lizetao <lizetao1@huawei.com>; Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>> Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] io_uring: add support for fchmod
>>
>> On 11/26/24 15:07, lizetao wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/19/24 1:12 AM, lizetao wrote:
>>>>>>> Adds support for doing chmod through io_uring.
>> IORING_OP_FCHMOD
>>>>>>> behaves like fchmod(2) and takes the same arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks pretty straight forward. The only downside is the forced use of
>> REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC - did you look into how feasible it would be to allow
>> non-blocking issue of this? Would imagine the majority of fchmod calls end
>> up not blocking in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I considered fchmod to allow asynchronous execution and wrote a
>> test case to test it, the results are as follows:
>>>>>
>>
>> FYI, this email got into spam.
> Sorry to bother everyone, but I would like to know if there are any
> plans to implement asynchronous system calls through io_uring, and
> which system calls are in the planning.
No specific plans, existing syscalls are mostly sync by nature of the
API for them. Supporting syscalls through io_uring in an efficient
manner generally necessitates changing something ala:
syscall_foo(..)
{
return do_foo_syscall(...);
}
into
syscall_foo(...)
{
start_foo_syscall(...);
return wait_on_foo_syscall(...);
}
where the act of issuing and waiting for the completion of it are two
separate entities, generally where the waiting is a waitqueue and the
wait_on_foo_syscall() simply waits on it to be completed, and io_uring
can use this waitqueue to get a callback when it has finished.
That allows efficient processing of syscalls through io_uring. If you
don't do that, then you're stuck with do_foo_syscall(), and then
io_uring can only support it by punting to the io-wq worker threads
which will do the sync do_foo_sycall() part.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-14 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-26 15:07 [PATCH -next] io_uring: add support for fchmod lizetao
2024-11-27 2:10 ` Jens Axboe
2024-12-03 14:44 ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-12-04 1:54 ` lizetao
2024-12-14 16:26 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-11-19 8:12 lizetao
2024-11-20 15:14 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d6e9cf93-670c-4700-899a-984e951a421c@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizetao1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.