Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 4/14/24 18:07, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> We'll need to associate additional callbacks with ubuf_info, introduce
> >> a structure holding ubuf_info callbacks. Apart from a more smarter
> >> io_uring notification management introduced in next patches, it can be
> >> used to generalise msg_zerocopy_put_abort() and also store
> >> ->sg_from_iter, which is currently passed in struct msghdr.
> >
> > This adds an extra indirection for all other ubuf implementations.
> > Can that be avoided?
>
> It could be fitted directly into ubuf_info, but that doesn't feel
> right. It should be hot, so does it even matter?
That depends on the workload (working set size)?
> On the bright side,
> with the patch I'll also ->sg_from_iter from msghdr into it, so it
> doesn't have to be in the generic path.
I don't follow this: is this suggested future work?
>
> I think it's the right approach, but if you have a strong opinion
> I can fit it as a new field in ubuf_info.
If there is a significant cost, I suppose we could use
INDIRECT_CALL or go one step further and demultiplex
based on the new ops
if (uarg->ops == &msg_zerocopy_ubuf_ops)
msg_zerocopy_callback(..);
