public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Papadakis <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Extending the functionality of some SQE OPs
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:54:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>



This sounds great. It may wind up being far more useful or important down the road, and if this doesn’t bloat the CQE, that’s fantastic. 

Thanks,
@markpapadakis

> On 21 Jan 2020, at 9:55 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 1/21/20 12:50 AM, Mark Papadakis wrote:
>> Would it make sense to extend the semantics of some OPS of specific
>> syscalls to, for example, return in the CQE more than just an int
>> (matching the semantics of the specific syscall they represent)?  For
>> example, the respective OP for accept/accept4 returns an int for error
>> or the fd of the accepted connection’s socket FD. But, given the
>> clean-room implementation of io_uring, this may be a good opportunity
>> to expand on it. Maybe there should be another field in the CQEs e.g
>> 
>> union {
>>    int i32;
>>    uint64_t u64;
>>    // whatever makes sense
>> } ret_ex;
>> 
>> Where the implementation of some OPs would access and set accordingly.
>> For example, the OP for accept could set ret_ex.i32 to 1 if there are
>> more outstanding FDs to be dequeued from the accepted connections
>> queue, so that the application should accept again thereby draining it
>> - as opposed to being woken up multiple times to do so. Other OPs may
>> take advantage of this for other reasons.
>> 
>> Maybe it doesn’t make as much sense as I think it does, but if
>> anything, it could become very useful down the road, once more
>> syscalls(even OPs that are entirely new are not otherwise represent
>> existing syscalls?) are implemented(invented?). 
> 
> Would certainly be possible, I'd suggest using a union around cqe->flags
> for that. The flags are unused as-of now, so we could introduce a way to
> know if we're passing back flags or u32 worth of data instead. If we
> unionize res2 with flags and reserve the upper bit of flags to say
> "flags are valid" or something like that, then we get 31 bits of int
> that could be used to pass back extra information.
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-21 20:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-21  7:50 Extending the functionality of some SQE OPs Mark Papadakis
2020-01-21 19:55 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-21 20:54   ` Mark Papadakis [this message]
2020-01-21 20:55     ` 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