public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] io_uring: add IORING_OP_PROVIDE_BUFFERS
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:28:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Hi,

On 2020-03-09 11:17:46 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> +static int io_add_buffers(struct io_provide_buf *pbuf, struct list_head *list)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct io_buffer *buf;
> >> +	u64 addr = pbuf->addr;
> >> +	int i, bid = pbuf->bid;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < pbuf->nbufs; i++) {
> >> +		buf = kmalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +		if (!buf)
> >> +			break;
> >> +
> >> +		buf->addr = addr;
> >> +		buf->len = pbuf->len;
> >> +		buf->bid = bid;
> >> +		list_add(&buf->list, list);
> >> +		addr += pbuf->len;
> >> +		bid++;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return i;
> >> +}
> > 
> > Hm, aren't you loosing an error here if you kmalloc fails for i > 0?
> > Afaict io_provide_buffes() only checks for ret != 0. I think userland
> > should know that a PROVIDE_BUFFERS failed, even if just partially (I'd
> > just make it fail wholesale).
> 
> The above one does have the issue that we're losing the error for i ==
> 0, current one does:
> 
> return i ? i : -ENOMEM;
> 
> But this is what most interfaces end up doing, return the number
> processed, if any, or error if none of them were added. Like a short
> read, for example, and you'd get EIO if you forwarded and tried again.
> So I tend to prefer doing it like that, at least to me it seems more
> logical than unwinding. The application won't know what buffer caused
> the error if you unwind, whereas it's perfectly clear if you asked to
> add 128 and we return 64 that the issue is with the 65th buffer.

Fair enough. I was/am thinking that this'd pretty much always be a fatal
error for the application. Which does seem a bit different from the
short read/write case, where there are plenty reasons to handle them
"silently" during normal operation.

But I can error out with the current interface, so ...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-09 17:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-28 20:30 [PATCHSET v3] io_uring support for automatic buffers Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/6] io_uring: buffer registration infrastructure Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/6] io_uring: add IORING_OP_PROVIDE_BUFFERS Jens Axboe
2020-02-29  0:43   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29  4:50     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-29 11:36       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29 17:32         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-29 12:08   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29 17:34     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-29 18:11       ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 17:03   ` Andres Freund
2020-03-09 17:17     ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 17:28       ` Andres Freund [this message]
2020-03-10 13:33         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 3/6] io_uring: support buffer selection Jens Axboe
2020-02-29 12:21   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29 17:35     ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-09 17:21   ` Andres Freund
2020-03-10 13:37     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 4/6] io_uring: add IOSQE_BUFFER_SELECT support for IORING_OP_READV Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 5/6] net: abstract out normal and compat msghdr import Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:30 ` [PATCH 6/6] io_uring: add IOSQE_BUFFER_SELECT support for IORING_OP_RECVMSG 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 \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox