On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:29:34 +0200 Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > pt., 14 lip 2023 o 09:05 Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:10:54AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:05:36 +0200 > > > Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > > > > > This simplifies the eventfd_signal() and eventfd_signal_mask() helpers > > > > by removing the count argument which is effectively unused. > > > > > > We have a patch under review which does in fact make use of the > > > signaling value: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230630155936.3015595-1-jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Huh, thanks for the link. > > > > Quoting from > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/patch/20230307220553.631069-1-jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx/#25266856 > > > > > Reading an eventfd returns an 8-byte value, we generally only use it > > > as a counter, but it's been discussed previously and IIRC, it's possible > > > to use that value as a notification value. > > > > So the goal is to pipe a specific value through eventfd? But it is > > explicitly a counter. The whole thing is written around a counter and > > each write and signal adds to the counter. > > > > The consequences are pretty well described in the cover letter of > > v6 https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230630155936.3015595-1-jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > Since the eventfd counter is used as ACPI notification value > > > placeholder, the eventfd signaling needs to be serialized in order to > > > not end up with notification values being coalesced. Therefore ACPI > > > notification values are buffered and signalized one by one, when the > > > previous notification value has been consumed. > > > > But isn't this a good indication that you really don't want an eventfd > > but something that's explicitly designed to associate specific data with > > a notification? Using eventfd in that manner requires serialization, > > buffering, and enforces ordering. What would that mechanism be? We've been iterating on getting the serialization and buffering correct, but I don't know of another means that combines the notification with a value, so we'd likely end up with an eventfd only for notification and a separate ring buffer for notification values. As this series demonstrates, the current in-kernel users only increment the counter and most userspace likely discards the counter value, which makes the counter largely a waste. While perhaps unconventional, there's no requirement that the counter may only be incremented by one, nor any restriction that I see in how userspace must interpret the counter value. As I understand the ACPI notification proposal that Grzegorz links below, a notification with an interpreted value allows for a more direct userspace implementation when dealing with a series of discrete notification with value events. Thanks, Alex > > I have no skin in the game aside from having to drop this conversion > > which I'm fine to do if there are actually users for this btu really, > > that looks a lot like abusing an api that really wasn't designed for > > this. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/patch/20230307220553.631069-1-jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > was posted at the beginig of March and one of the main things we've > discussed was the mechanism for propagating acpi notification value. > We've endup with eventfd as the best mechanism and have actually been > using it from v2. I really do not want to waste this effort, I think > we are quite advanced with v6 now. Additionally we didn't actually > modify any part of eventfd support that was in place, we only used it > in a specific (and discussed beforehand) way. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
