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?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.