Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAODFU0q6CrUB_LkSdrbp5TQ4Jm6Sw=ZepZwD-B7-aFudsOvsig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200705115021.GA1227929@kroah.com> <20200714065110.GA8047@amd>
 <CAJfpegu8AXZWQh3W39PriqxVna+t3D2pz23t_4xEVxGcNf1AUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e92b851-ce9a-e2f6-3f9a-a4d47219d320@gmail.com> <CAJfpegvroouw5ndHv+395w5PP1c+pUyp=-T8qhhvSnFbhbRehg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7584d754-2044-a892-cf29-65259b9c4eb1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7584d754-2044-a892-cf29-65259b9c4eb1@gmail.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:41:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvkw5Exptz=gY5bRy2U8GjvTo+muBHsgdF_PA5=hyhmSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] readfile(2): a new syscall to make open/read/close faster
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, shuah@kernel.org,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:33 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14/07/2020 14:55, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:36 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14/07/2020 11:07, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:51 AM Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi!
> >>>>
> >>>>>> At first, I thought that the proposed system call is capable of
> >>>>>> reading *multiple* small files using a single system call - which
> >>>>>> would help increase HDD/SSD queue utilization and increase IOPS (I/O
> >>>>>> operations per second) - but that isn't the case and the proposed
> >>>>>> system call can read just a single file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to do this for multple files, use io_ring, that's what it
> >>>>> was designed for.  I think Jens was going to be adding support for the
> >>>>> open/read/close pattern to it as well, after some other more pressing
> >>>>> features/fixes were finished.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about... just using io_uring for single file, too? I'm pretty
> >>>> sure it can be wrapped in a library that is simple to use, avoiding
> >>>> need for new syscall.
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering:  is there a plan to add strace support to io_uring?
> >>> And I don't just mean the syscalls associated with io_uring, but
> >>> tracing the ring itself.
> >>
> >> What kind of support do you mean? io_uring is asynchronous in nature
> >> with all intrinsic tracing/debugging/etc. problems of such APIs.
> >> And there are a lot of handy trace points, are those not enough?
> >>
> >> Though, this can be an interesting project to rethink how async
> >> APIs are worked with.
> >
> > Yeah, it's an interesting problem.  The uring has the same events, as
> > far as I understand, that are recorded in a multithreaded strace
> > output (syscall entry, syscall exit); nothing more is needed>
> > I do think this needs to be integrated into strace(1), otherwise the
> > usefulness of that tool (which I think is *very* high) would go down
> > drastically as io_uring usage goes up.
>
> Not touching the topic of usefulness of strace + io_uring, but I'd rather
> have a tool that solves a problem, than a problem that created and honed
> for a tool.

Sorry, I'm not getting the metaphor.  Can you please elaborate?

Thanks,
Miklos