News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:lsr: ls with io_uring by Bender on Friday July 18, 2025 @09:25AM (#44604402)
I am curious what would happen if ls and other commands were replaced using io_uring and kernel.io_uring_disabled was set to 1. Would it fall back to an older behavior or would the ability to disable it be removed?
Re:lsr: ls with io_uring by rockorager on Friday July 18, 2025 @12:22PM (#44606541)
You would have to write your IO to have a fallback. The Ghostty project uses `io_uring`, but on kernels where it isn't available it falls back to an `epoll` model. That's all handled at the library level by libxev.
Re:lsr: ls with io_uring by yencabulator on Friday July 18, 2025 @12:26PM (#44606600)
I just realized that one could probably write a userspace io_uring emulator in a library that spawns a thread to read the ringbuffer and a worker pool of threads to do the blocking operations. You'd need to get the main software to make calls to your library instead of the io_uring syscalls, that's it; the app logic could remain the same.

Then all the software wanting to use io_uring wouldn't need to write their low-level things twice.

Re:lsr: ls with io_uring by Asmod4n on Friday July 18, 2025 @03:56PM (#44609097)
I'm about to start something like this targetting epoll, poll, dispatch_io and maybe kqueue this weekend.