From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: undeprecate epoll_ctl support
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 14:21:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 5/3/23 13:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/3/23 2:58?AM, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 2:51?PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/1/23 19:52, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>>>> Libuv recently started using it so there is at least one consumer now.
>>>
>>> It was rather deprecated because io_uring controlling epoll is a bad
>>> idea and should never be used. One reason is that it means libuv still
>>> uses epoll but not io_uring, and so the use of io_uring wouldn't seem
>>> to make much sense. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that, why libuv
>>> decided to use a deprecated API in the first place?
>>> Sorry, but the warning is going to stay and libuv should revert the use
>>> of epol_ctl requests.
>>
>> Why use a deprecated API? Because it was only recently deprecated.
>> Distro kernels don't warn about it yet. I only found out because of
>> kernel source code spelunking.
>>
>> Why combine io_uring and epoll? Libuv uses level-triggered I/O for
>> reasons (I can go into detail but they're not material) so it's very
>> profitable to batch epoll_ctl syscalls; it's the epoll_ctlv() syscall
>> people have been asking for since practically forever.
>>
>> Why not switch to io_uring wholesale? Libuv can't drop support for
>> epoll because of old kernels, and io_uring isn't always clearly faster
>> than epoll in the first place.
>>
>> As to the warning: according to the commit that introduced it, it was
>> added because no one was using IORING_OP_EPOLL_CTL. Well, now someone
>> is using it. Saying it's a bad API feels like post-hoc
>> rationalization. I kindly ask you merge this patch. I'd be happy to
>> keep an eye on io_uring/epoll.c if you're worried about maintenance
>> burden.
>
> This is obviously mostly our fault, as the deprecation patch should've
> obviously been backported to stable. Just adding it to the current
> kernel defeated the purpose, as it added a long period where older
> kernels quite happily accepted epoll use cases.
>
> So I do agree, the only sane course of action here is to un-deprecate
> it.
nack, keeping piling rubbish is not a great course of action at all.
Has libuv already released it? Because it seems the patches were
just merged.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-03 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-01 18:52 [PATCH] io_uring: undeprecate epoll_ctl support Ben Noordhuis
2023-05-02 12:47 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-05-03 8:58 ` Ben Noordhuis
2023-05-03 12:49 ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-03 13:21 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2023-05-03 13:42 ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-03 13:13 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-05-03 14:55 ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-06 9:55 ` Ben Noordhuis
2023-05-27 1:48 ` Sam James
2023-05-27 2:22 ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-27 2:22 ` 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] \
[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