On 07/11/2020 14:22, Victor Stewart wrote: > RE Jen's proposed patch here > https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/45d7558a-d0c8-4d3f-c63a-33fd2fb073a5@xxxxxxxxx/ Hmm, I haven't seen this thread, thanks for bringing it up > > and RE what Stefan just mentioned in the "[PATCH 5.11] io_uring: don't > take fs for recvmsg/sendmsg" thread a few minutes ago... "Can't we > better remove these checks and allow msg_control? For me it's a > limitation that I would like to be removed."... which I coincidentally > just read when coming on here to advocate the same. > > I also require this for a few vital performance use cases: > > 1) GSO (UDP_SEGMENT to sendmsg) > 2) GRO (UDP_GRO from recvmsg) Don't know these you listed, may read about them later, but wouldn't [1] be enough? I was told it's queued up. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/net/socket.c?id=583bbf0624dfd8fc45f1049be1d4980be59451ff > > GSO and GRO are super important for QUIC servers... essentially > bringing a 3-4x performance improvement that brings them in line with > TCP efficiency. > > Would also allow the usage of... > > 3) MSG_ZEROCOPY (to receive the sock_extended_err from recvmsg) > > it's only a single digit % performance gain for large sends (but a > minor crutch until we get registered buffer sendmsg / recvmsg, which I > plan on implementing). > > So if there's an agreed upon plan on action I can take charge of all > the work and get this done ASAP. > > #Victor > -- Pavel Begunkov
