Re: [PATCH 0/3] vmsplice: make vmsplice a trivial wrapper for preadv2/pwritev2

[Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 03:06:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 at 14:37, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Well, that's most definitely part of my patch. Also, you cannot outright
> > remove splice() functionality
> 
> That isn't what Askar's patch ever did.
> 
> You apparently didn't even read it.
 
Well, I was replying to Askar's new idea to remove pagecache-to-pipe splice,
which is what he suggested. And directly intersects with my sysctl-to-disable-splice
patch.

> Honestly, I think you are the one out of line here.
> 
> Askar did something I suggested years ago, and didn't remove any functionality.
> 
> It just changes vmsplice to be a copying model (one of the directions
> already was). It doesn't change regular splice at all.
> 
> And yes, it has the potential to be a visible behavior difference - if
> some insane user uses vmsplice and then modifies the buffer
> *afterwards*, then that would be semantically different between a
> zero-copy and a normal copy.
> 
> But that would be insane behavior, and was never really reliable
> anyway even with zero-copy (ie subsequent writes to user space buffers
> would potentially do COW breaking based purely on timing and memory
> pressure etc, so anybody who relied on it being visible wasn't goign
> to get it realiably anyway)
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, it has the potential to change performance -
> zero-copy *can* be a performance win, although typically it really
> doesn't tend to be (looking up the page mapping is often slower than
> copying).
> 
> I would expect it to be very clear in trivial benchmarks that aren't
> actually real loads. And probably not visible anywhere else.

Yes, vmsplice() sucks, and we know it. Hopefully no one else will see the
difference. I don't think we can say the same for splice(), though.

> Trying to make it look like Askar is the problem is only making you look worse.

To be clear, I don't think Askar is the (or a) problem. I'm glad he's
contributing, and getting rid of bad kernel interfaces is always nice. I was
just a little frustrated with a parallel splice-related-unscrew patch.

(Askar, if I was too hostile, I do sincerely apologize.)

-- 
Pedro