On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:04:55 -0400 Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 18:33:25 +0100
Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 10:17:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

TLDR: maybe we could ghet rid of "f_op->splice_read". *That* would be
a big simplification.  

FUSE might be interesting - fuse_dev_splice_read() and its ilk.
Communications between the kernel and fuse server at least used to
seriously want that, so that would be one place to look for unhappy
userland...

splice-related logics in fs/fuse/dev.c is interesting; another place
like this is kernel/trace/, but I'm less familiar with that one.

rostedt Cc'd (miklos already had been)

Thanks for the Cc. The tracing ring buffer was specifically made to be used
by splice and the libtracefs has a lot of code to use it as well. As
reading the ring buffer literally swaps out the write portion with a blank
read portion, that portion (sub-buffer) is used to be directly fed into
splice, providing a zero-copy of the trace data from the write of the event
to going into a file.

trace-cmd defaults to using splice to copy the tracing ring buffer directly
into files to avoid as much copying during live recordings as possible.

Whatever changes we make, I would like to make sure there's no regressions
in performance of trace-cmd record.

Well yes, The patchset seems sensible from a quality POV.  But to make
a decision we should first have a decent understanding of its downside
impact.

I haven't seen a description of that impact in the discussion thus far.
And that description is owed, please.

I assume a small number of specialized applications are using
vmsplice() to great effect?  What are those applications?  What is the
impact of this change?

Once we are armed with that information, is there some middle ground in
which we de-feature vmsplice()?  Fall back to pread/pwrite in the
tricky cases and still permit vmsplicing if the application is
appropriately restrictive in it usage?