Comment by oconnor663 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oconnor663 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> don't use `let mut buf = [0u8; 16]; socket.read_all(&mut buf).await?;`. If you can't see why such arguments are bonkers, we don't have anything left to talk about.

It doesn't seem bonkers to me. I know you already know these details, but spelling it out: If I'm using select/poll/epoll in C to do non-blocking reads of a socket, then yes I can use any old stack buffer to receive the bytes, because those are readiness APIs that only write through my pointer "now or never". But if I'm using IOCP/io_uring, I have to be careful not to use a stack buffer that doesn't outlive the whole IO loop, because those are completion APIs that write through my pointer "later". This isn't just a question of the borrow checker being smart enough to analyze our code; it's a genuine difference in what correct code needs to do in these two different settings. So if async Rust forces us to use heap allocated (or long-lived in some other way) buffers to do IOCP/io_uring reads, is that a failure of the async model, or is that just the nature of systems programming?

>is that a failure of the async model

This, 100%. Being really generous, it can be called a leaky model which is poorly compatible with completion-based APIs.

The leaky model is that you could ever receive into a stack buffer and you're arguing to persist this model. The reason it's leaky is that copying memory around is supremely expensive. But that's how the BSD socket API from the 90s works and btw something you can make work with async provided you're into memory copies. io_uring is a modern API that's for performance and that's why Rust libraries try to avoid memory copying within the internals. Supporting copying into the stack buffer with io_uring is very difficult to accomplish even in synchronous code. It's not a failure of async but a different programming paradigm altogether.

As someone else mentioned, what you really want is to ask io_uring to allocate the pages itself so that for reads it gives you pages that were allocated by the kernel to be filled directly by HW and then mapped into your userspace process without any copying by the kernel or any other SW layer involved.

there is just one catch.

Using the feature to let io_uring handle buffers for you limits you to the mem lock limit of a process, which is 8MB on a typical debian install (more on others) And that's a hard limit unless you got root access to said machine.

Sure, that's the most efficient way. But you can still have the user allocate a read buffer, pass it to the read API & receive it on the way out. In fact, unlike what OP claimed, this is actually more efficient since you could safely avoid unnecessarily initializing this buffer safely (by truncating to the length read before returning) whereas safely using uninitialized buffers is kind of tricky.

> what you really want is to ask io_uring to allocate the pages itself so that for reads it gives you pages that were allocated by the kernel

Okay, but what about writes? If I have a memory region that I want io_uring to write, it's a major pain in the ass to manage the lifetime of objects in that region in a safe way. My choices are basically: manually manage the lifetime and only allow it to be dropped when I see a completion show up (this is what most everything does now, and it's a) hard to get right and b) limited in many ways, e.g. it's heap-only), or permanently leak that memory as unusable.

You ask the I/O system for a writable buffer. When you fill it up, you hand it off. Once the I/o finishes, it goes back into the available pool of memory to write with. This is how high performance I/O works.

Okay, but . . . how would that work? A syscall gives back a pointer (I thought the point was to avoid syscalls/context switches)? An io_malloc userspace function (great, now how do I manage lifetimes of the buffers it hands out)? Something else?

The memory is allocated by the runtime that has the io_uring backend. You ask it for memory which it manages in its own memory allocator. Lifetime is managed no differently than Vec. For example, when you drop the DmaBuffer [1] it goes back into the pool. Or you hand it off as an I/O submission after filling it up.

The memory frequently needs to be mlocked memory anyway, so a general purpose allocator doesn't work.

[1] https://docs.rs/glommio/latest/glommio/fn.allocate_dma_buffe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com