[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v1.1 5/6] tools/libxs: Use writev()/sendmsg() instead of write()
On 23/07/2024 2:45 pm, Jason Andryuk wrote: > On 2024-07-23 08:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 23.07.24 14:25, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 23/07/2024 10:37 am, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>> On 22.07.24 18:25, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> With the input data now conveniently arranged, use writev()/sendmsg() >>>>> instead >>>>> of decomposing it into write() calls. >>>>> >>>>> This causes all requests to be submitted with a single system call, >>>>> rather >>>>> than at least two. While in principle short writes can occur, the >>>>> chances of >>>>> it happening are slim given that most xenbus comms are only a >>>>> handful of >>>>> bytes. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, provide {writev,sendmsg}_exact() wrappers which take >>>>> care of >>>>> resubmitting on EINTR or short write. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> CC: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> CC: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> CC: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> v1.1: >>>>> * Fix iov overread, spotted by Frediano. Factor the common >>>>> updating logic >>>>> out into update_iov(). >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/libs/store/xs.c | 94 >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/libs/store/xs.c b/tools/libs/store/xs.c >>>>> index e820cccc2314..f80ac7558cbe 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/libs/store/xs.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/libs/store/xs.c >>>>> @@ -563,6 +563,95 @@ static void *read_reply( >>>>> return body; >>>>> } >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Update an iov/nr pair after an incomplete writev()/sendmsg(). >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Awkwardly, nr has different widths and signs between writev() and >>>>> + * sendmsg(), so we take it and return it by value, rather than by >>>>> pointer. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static size_t update_iov(struct iovec **p_iov, size_t nr, size_t >>>>> res) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct iovec *iov = *p_iov; >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Skip fully complete elements, including empty >>>>> elements. */ >>>>> + while (nr && res >= iov->iov_len) { >>>>> + res -= iov->iov_len; >>>>> + nr--; >>>>> + iov++; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Partial element, adjust base/len. */ >>>>> + if (res) { >>>>> + iov->iov_len -= res; >>>>> + iov->iov_base += res; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + *p_iov = iov; >>>>> + >>>>> + return nr; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Wrapper around sendmsg() to resubmit on EINTR or short write. >>>>> Returns >>>>> + * @true if all data was transmitted, or @false with errno for an >>>>> error. >>>>> + * Note: May alter @iov in place on resubmit. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static bool sendmsg_exact(int fd, struct iovec *iov, unsigned int >>>>> nr) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct msghdr hdr = { >>>>> + .msg_iov = iov, >>>>> + .msg_iovlen = nr, >>>>> + }; >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Sanity check first element isn't empty */ >>>>> + assert(iov->iov_len == sizeof(struct xsd_sockmsg)); >>>> >>>> Can you please move this assert() into write_request(), avoiding to >>>> have >>>> 2 copies of it? >>> >>> It was more relevant before update_iov() was split out. >>> >>> But, there's exactly the same assertion in the write_request()'s >>> caller, >>> so I'd prefer to simply drop it if that's ok? >>> >>> The writev()/sendmsg() won't malfunction if the first element is 0, and >>> update_iov() will now cope too, so I don't think it's necessary. >> >> Fine with me. > > Reviewed-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx> Thanks. > > Looks like xs_write_all() is now unused internally, but it's an > exposed library function. I guess it can just be kept instead of > bumping the library version. I have a /dev/null shaped hole I'm itching to file it in, but that is going to need a soname bump. It's just one of many dubious functions exposed... One mess at a time. ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |