Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND] io_uring: add timeout support for io_uring_enter()

Pavel Begunkov
2020-11-04T21:23:27Z

On 04/11/2020 20:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/4/20 1:16 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 04/11/2020 19:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 11/4/20 12:27 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2020 18:32, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/20 10:50 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> +struct io_uring_getevents_arg {
>>>>>> + sigset_t *sigmask;
>>>>>> + struct __kernel_timespec *ts;
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> I missed that this is still not right, I did bring it up in your last
>>>>> posting though - you can't have pointers as a user API, since the size
>>>>> of the pointer will vary depending on whether this is a 32-bit or 64-bit
>>>>> arch (or 32-bit app running on 64-bit kernel).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it would be better
>>>>
>>>> 1) to kill this extra indirection?
>>>>
>>>> struct io_uring_getevents_arg {
>>>> - sigset_t *sigmask;
>>>> - struct __kernel_timespec *ts;
>>>> + sigset_t sigmask;
>>>> + struct __kernel_timespec ts;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> then,
>>>>
>>>> sigset_t *sig = (...)arg;
>>>> __kernel_timespec* ts = (...)(arg + offset);
>>>
>>> But then it's kind of hard to know which, if any, of them are set... I
>>> did think about this, and any solution seemed worse than just having the
>>> extra indirection.
>>
>> struct io_uring_getevents_arg {
>> sigset_t sigmask;
>> u32 mask;
>> struct __kernel_timespec ts;
>> };
>>
>> if size > sizeof(sigmask), then use mask to determine that.
>> Though, not sure how horrid the rest of the code would be.
>
> I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I think the end result would
> be worse in terms of both kernel code and how the user applications (or
> liburing) would need to use it. I'd rather sacrifice an extra copy for
> something that's straight forward (and logical) to use, rather than
> needing weird setups or hoops to jump through. And this mask vs
> sizeof(mask) thing seems pretty horrendeous to me :-)

If you think so, I'll spare my time then :)

>
>>> Yeah, not doing the extra indirection would save a copy, but don't think
>>> it's worth it for this path.
>>
>> I much more don't like branching like IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS_TIMEOUT,
>> from conceptual point. I may try it out to see how it looks like while
>> it's still for-next.
>
> One thing I think we should change is the name,
> IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS_TIMEOUT will quickly be a bad name if we end up
> adding just one more thing to the struct. Would be better to call it
> IORING_ENTER_EXTRA_DATA or something, meaning that the sigmask pointer
> is a pointer to the aux data instead of a sigmask. Better name
> suggestions welcome...

_EXT_ARG from extended

Also, a minor one -- s/sigsz/argsz/

--
Pavel Begunkov