From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABFF6218AA3 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742411775; cv=none; b=BxSWY0HrgM9U068f+JesXpqdisCMisfQYMzbopTjr/i28F6ZRSdlLlxEpTRm1SUdynHH/F/1sRkTKid2nlqpU/35KmUwA5VE4lSDwFJ1EHD/bvI4Nm5GAm7AzjRX2cE+jGUHR7MVeNSqRqSTCNSQLVOnj57IVO/pTNOVWW8f+HE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742411775; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AMC7O5Mkx9jqu2vg9GCA6xeI3m/5AxK89Kdq6/mF6qY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=i31o7uwqSt8P3EhhV5YO/BKF654fHSLB4BFJWmD4NKPGNsXL9mEMnePkxwCusj7PaeOM5g6tejNR3oEdloITX4ooI5XJccXHTWPByIhdtdKOdisGVeC/RrCJHXqVx53OqKg4v95IHlcMTbIHLrkpkV+3/4HtNpG/TZuy/YH7UqI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fastly.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fastly.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastly.com header.i=@fastly.com header.b=vlfACF48; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fastly.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fastly.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastly.com header.i=@fastly.com header.b="vlfACF48" Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2264aefc45dso33760325ad.0 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastly.com; s=google; t=1742411772; x=1743016572; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pZXwsswANMqp09rxFCGtanZZO7Rvv3Uu26H3QjdXD5I=; b=vlfACF48gfJhz7e8hwdARQo0ddwcyk+FnbUsCRJ2UwCS9++NJBr2X+G96/9Bjnu0qg o5dHpSFc8kDxdYUInot3bY3DDimd/VNZ0hNrCVmAaMOs3Srfz/WxfAe/YJ4/M8+8kMOt WJLT44yVt5I7wLuxXsmPCVNzloL02z5iBIM1U= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1742411772; x=1743016572; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pZXwsswANMqp09rxFCGtanZZO7Rvv3Uu26H3QjdXD5I=; b=t4QVXvTtnBKD0dlVXJMcqem1/Q9mNxiq18ZM5JKtFrx+JKAMGL4sXM/qcBns3X+/Tt xOhVUU1fKKS2FVlLK6r8L+jDlvnHNPPoXYHbDUONz/lNJa6QPUcN4/Hl4LTv2stlc30s B4dzAWn5Ky2omKageMOcO/nLK+n3ZdmtIRQVRbmoAts90a9Rr2lZngBo+Ti/fTO0KVLh OtPg7Q/yDYq4FRml5psvyFrLddrxVuK0ojP5ZskWR6735h9KEbSkiVYzXH3tO+lJTf7A HCkg5ETTZSCGWc3X5JO2lZ8GuBPN+l8KOzsNW3ZW//xkuwDc+1wLMGD9Qsrv6jWhr5IB TkRA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUbbgYx1thX7chOtzRX87aX821GVCs+6h7JXKiB0yG2LFk8m1xpXft4EgfCe1HWrXXByLMwk0CHFuA=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzqWhqDeCQUFnbDeas2bhU3j/nIkSwjAmQ8U83CQMwkyGAL/mTK BS/4QkfFIUFfoCGIgKiJc76PHQ1z2B8JK6NECvVswm3zwypaoRLSToTnrAbGh1E= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuMw1JLnWJbWhn349A/O4GCmKTultDtv/3KHNfnEL8EWKhc6O/K04EBetaExpq Z8RpCxZt3NXRZiRGc9af74o5mkdV4zXRUfJgQlFk2mvoutwUsQv20OkQzPlbRsgxZDULd3geXHd wnwzNbMERd471fOiU1p4CDPmr1kkx6LA3wEZYprWzDFMwyTDtWkp1jbirKEU8tv1I13GPm4tx/K 0P/dZk9u6APwUalHmh4/BqA1qptiI724Ayd5lllfIWv6hOdL9svJ8Ey7k/LrtGJWDho73Lmr9Zn kr9Mf4XWO1rxEFwL29izlZe7QIn8cH8BAVGAEc4ic24KqHiKdLu7SK11zr+E5blUaoKvGlLzcIg Vt/JJNuBcpCpfK0+t X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEofdOhpjDUT+eViAkwJ42mmOeUvQtHTn3aknfZ/omdP2jMr8YSXgAtJtZUaxMiiooBHwuu5A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:a87:b0:736:728b:5f1f with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7377a92c52bmr618119b3a.19.1742411771785; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LQ3V64L9R2 (c-24-6-151-244.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.151.244]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-737115295e5sm12091157b3a.23.2025.03.19.12.16.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:16:07 -0700 From: Joe Damato To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, asml.silence@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, kuba@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, mingo@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, brauner@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jolsa@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC -next 00/10] Add ZC notifications to splice and sendfile Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Joe Damato , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, asml.silence@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, kuba@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, mingo@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, brauner@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jolsa@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20250319001521.53249-1-jdamato@fastly.com> <2d68bc91-c22c-4b48-a06d-fa9ec06dfb25@kernel.dk> <19e3056c-2f7b-4f41-9c40-98955c4a9ed3@kernel.dk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:37:29PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 3/19/25 11:45 AM, Joe Damato wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:20:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 3/19/25 11:04 AM, Joe Damato wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:07:27AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> On 3/19/25 9:32 AM, Joe Damato wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:04:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:15:11AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: > >>>>>>> One way to fix this is to add zerocopy notifications to sendfile similar > >>>>>>> to how MSG_ZEROCOPY works with sendmsg. This is possible thanks to the > >>>>>>> extensive work done by Pavel [1]. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is a "zerocopy notification" > >>>>> > >>>>> See the docs on MSG_ZEROCOPY [1], but in short when a user app calls > >>>>> sendmsg and passes MSG_ZEROCOPY a completion notification is added > >>>>> to the error queue. The user app can poll for these to find out when > >>>>> the TX has completed and the buffer it passed to the kernel can be > >>>>> overwritten. > >>>>> > >>>>> My series provides the same functionality via splice and sendfile2. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.13/networking/msg_zerocopy.html > >>>>> > >>>>>> and why aren't you simply plugging this into io_uring and generate > >>>>>> a CQE so that it works like all other asynchronous operations? > >>>>> > >>>>> I linked to the iouring work that Pavel did in the cover letter. > >>>>> Please take a look. > >>>>> > >>>>> That work refactored the internals of how zerocopy completion > >>>>> notifications are wired up, allowing other pieces of code to use the > >>>>> same infrastructure and extend it, if needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> My series is using the same internals that iouring (and others) use > >>>>> to generate zerocopy completion notifications. Unlike iouring, > >>>>> though, I don't need a fully customized implementation with a new > >>>>> user API for harvesting completion events; I can use the existing > >>>>> mechanism already in the kernel that user apps already use for > >>>>> sendmsg (the error queue, as explained above and in the > >>>>> MSG_ZEROCOPY documentation). > >>>> > >>>> The error queue is arguably a work-around for _not_ having a delivery > >>>> mechanism that works with a sync syscall in the first place. The main > >>>> question here imho would be "why add a whole new syscall etc when > >>>> there's already an existing way to do accomplish this, with > >>>> free-to-reuse notifications". If the answer is "because splice", then it > >>>> would seem saner to plumb up those bits only. Would be much simpler > >>>> too... > >>> > >>> I may be misunderstanding your comment, but my response would be: > >>> > >>> There are existing apps which use sendfile today unsafely and > >>> it would be very nice to have a safe sendfile equivalent. Converting > >>> existing apps to using iouring (if I understood your suggestion?) > >>> would be significantly more work compared to calling sendfile2 and > >>> adding code to check the error queue. > >> > >> It's really not, if you just want to use it as a sync kind of thing. If > >> you want to have multiple things in flight etc, yeah it could be more > >> work, you'd also get better performance that way. And you could use > >> things like registered buffers for either of them, which again would > >> likely make it more efficient. > > > > I haven't argued that performance would be better using sendfile2 > > compared to iouring, just that existing apps which already use > > sendfile (but do so unsafely) would probably be more likely to use a > > safe alternative with existing examples of how to harvest completion > > notifications vs something more complex, like wrapping iouring. > > Sure and I get that, just not sure it'd be worth doing on the kernel > side for such (fairly) weak reasoning. The performance benefit is just a > side note in that if you did do it this way, you'd potentially be able > to run it more efficiently too. And regardless what people do or use > now, they are generally always interested in that aspect. Fair enough. > >> If you just use it as a sync thing, it'd be pretty trivial to just wrap > >> a my_sendfile_foo() in a submit_and_wait operation, which issues and > >> waits on the completion in a single syscall. And if you want to wait on > >> the notification too, you could even do that in the same syscall and > >> wait on 2 CQEs. That'd be a downright trivial way to provide a sync way > >> of doing the same thing. > > > > I don't disagree; I just don't know if app developers: > > a.) know that this is possible to do, and > > b.) know how to do it > > Writing that wrapper would be not even a screenful of code. Yes maybe > they don't know how to do it now, but it's _really_ trivial to do. It'd > take me roughly 1 min to do that, would be happy to help out with that > side so it could go into a commit or man page or whatever. I'd never be opposed to more documentation ;) > > In general: it does seem a bit odd to me that there isn't a safe > > sendfile syscall in Linux that uses existing completion notification > > mechanisms. > > Pretty natural, I think. sendfile(2) predates that by quite a bit, and > the last real change to sendfile was using splice underneath. Which I > did, and that was probably almost 20 years ago at this point... > > I do think it makes sense to have a sendfile that's both fast and > efficient, and can be used sanely with buffer reuse without relying on > odd heuristics. Just trying to tie this together in my head -- are you saying that you think the kernel internals of sendfile could be changed in a different way or that this a userland problem (and they should use the io_uring wrapper you suggested above) ? > >>> I would also argue that there are likely user apps out there that > >>> use both sendmsg MSG_ZEROCOPY for certain writes (for data in > >>> memory) and also use sendfile (for data on disk). One example would > >>> be a reverse proxy that might write HTTP headers to clients via > >>> sendmsg but transmit the response body with sendfile. > >>> > >>> For those apps, the code to check the error queue already exists for > >>> sendmsg + MSG_ZEROCOPY, so swapping in sendfile2 seems like an easy > >>> way to ensure safe sendfile usage. > >> > >> Sure that is certainly possible. I didn't say that wasn't the case, > >> rather that the error queue approach is a work-around in the first place > >> for not having some kind of async notification mechanism for when it's > >> free to reuse. > > > > Of course, I certainly agree that the error queue is a work around. > > But it works, app use it, and its fairly well known. I don't see any > > reason, other than historical context, why sendmsg can use this > > mechanism, splice can, but sendfile shouldn't? > > My argument would be the same as for other features - if you can do it > simpler this other way, why not consider that? The end result would be > the same, you can do fast sendfile() with sane buffer reuse. But the > kernel side would be simpler, which is always a kernel main goal for > those of us that have to maintain it. > > Just adding sendfile2() works in the sense that it's an easier drop in > replacement for an app, though the error queue side does mean it needs > to change anyway - it's not just replacing one syscall with another. And > if we want to be lazy, sure that's fine. I just don't think it's the > best way to do it when we literally have a mechanism that's designed for > this and works with reuse already with normal send zc (and receive side > too, in the next kernel). It seems like you've answered the question I asked above and that you are suggesting there might be a better and simpler sendfile2 kernel-side implementation that doesn't rely on splice internals at all. Am I following you? If so, I'll drop the sendfile2 stuff from this series and stick with the splice changes only, if you are (at a high level) OK with the idea of adding a flag for this to splice. In the meantime, I'll take a few more reads through the iouring code to see if I can work out how sendfile2 might be built on top of that instead of splice in the kernel. Thank you very much for your time, feedback, and attention, Joe