Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY.

Arnd Bergmann
2024-01-25T17:02:50Z

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 23:28, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 13:52:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 19:02, Elizabeth Figura wrote:

>> > That'd be nicer in general. I think there was some documentation that advised
>> > using timespec64 for new ioctl interfaces but it may have been outdated or
>> > misread.
>>
>> It's probably something I wrote. It depends a bit on
>> whether you have an absolute or relative timeout. If
>> the timeout is relative to the current time as I understand
>> it is here, a 64-bit number seems more logical to me.
>>
>> For absolute times, I would usually use a __kernel_timespec,
>> especially if it's CLOCK_REALTIME. In this case you would
>> also need to specify the time domain.
>
> Currently the interface does pass it as an absolute time, with the
> domain implicitly being MONOTONIC. This particular choice comes from
> process/botching-up-ioctls.rst, which is admittedly focused around GPU
> ioctls, but the rationale of having easily restartable ioctls applies
> here too.

Ok, I was thinking of Documentation/driver-api/ioctl.rst, which
has similar recommendations.

> (E.g. Wine does play games with signals, so we do want to be able to
> interrupt arbitrary waits with EINTR. The "usual" fast path for ntsync
> waits won't hit that, but we want to have it work.)
>
> On the other hand, if we can pass the timeout as relative, and write it
> back on exit like ppoll() does [assuming that's not proscribed], that
> would presumably be slightly better for performance.

I've seen arguments go either way between absolute and relative
times, just pick whatever works best for you here.

> When writing the patch I just picked the recommended option, and didn't
> bother doing any micro-optimizations afterward.
>
> What's the rationale for using timespec for absolute or written-back
> timeouts, instead of dealing in ns directly? I'm afraid it's not
> obvious to me.

There is no hard rule either way, I mainly didn't like the
indirect pointer to the timespec that you have here. For
traditional unix-style interfaces, a timespec with CLOCK_REALTIME
times usually makes sense since that is what user space is
already using elsewhere, but you probably don't need to
worry about that. In theory, the single u64 CLOCK_REALTIME
nanoseconds have the problem of no longer working after year
2262, but with CLOCK_MONOTONIC that is not a concern anyway.

Between embedding a __u64 nanosecond value and embedding
a __kernel_timespec, I would pick whichever avoids converting
a __u64 back into a timespec, as that is an expensive
operation at least on 32-bit code.

Arnd