From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <[email protected]>,
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
"Dmitry V. Levin" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io-wq: expose IO_WQ_ACCT_* enumeration items to UAPI
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:28:11 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 9/13/21 4:41 AM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> These are used to index elements in the argument
> of IORING_REGISTER_IOWQ_MAX_WORKERS io_uring_register command,
> so they are to be exposed in UAPI.
>
> Complements: 2e480058ddc21ec5 ("io-wq: provide a way to limit max number of workers")
> Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> - IO_WQ_ACCT_NR is no longer exposed directly in UAPI, per Jens Axboe's
> suggestion.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> ---
> fs/io-wq.c | 5 ++---
> include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h | 8 ++++++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
> index 6c55362..eb5162d 100644
> --- a/fs/io-wq.c
> +++ b/fs/io-wq.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/rculist_nulls.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> #include <linux/tracehook.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/io_uring.h>
>
> #include "io-wq.h"
>
> @@ -78,9 +79,7 @@ struct io_wqe_acct {
> };
>
> enum {
> - IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND,
> - IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND,
> - IO_WQ_ACCT_NR,
> + IO_WQ_ACCT_NR = __IO_WQ_ACCT_MAX
> };
>
> /*
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> index 59ef351..dae1841 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> @@ -324,6 +324,14 @@ enum {
> IORING_REGISTER_LAST
> };
>
> +/* io-wq worker limit categories */
> +enum {
> + IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND,
> + IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND,
> +
> + __IO_WQ_ACCT_MAX /* Non-UAPI */
> +};
This is really the same thing as before, just the names have changed.
What I suggested was keeping the enum in io_uring, then just adding
enum {
IO_WQ_BOUND,
IO_WQ_UNBOUND,
};
to uapi header. The ACCT stuff is io-wq specific too, that kind of naming
shouldn't be propagated to userspace.
A BUILD_BUG_ON() could be added for them being different, but honestly
I don't think that's worth it.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-13 10:41 [PATCH v2] io-wq: expose IO_WQ_ACCT_* enumeration items to UAPI Eugene Syromiatnikov
2021-09-13 13:28 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-09-13 15:52 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
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] \
[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