Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:31:26 +0530 | From | Suparna Bhattacharya <> | Subject | [PATCH 0/6] Integrate AIO with wait-bit based filtered wakeups |
| |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:31:54PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > Since AIO development is gaining momentum once again, ocfs2 and > samba both appear to be using AIO, NFS needs async semaphores etc, > there appears to be an increase in interest in straightening out some > of the pending work in this area. So this seems like a good > time to re-post some of those patches for discussion and decision. > > Just to help sync up, here is an initial list based on the pieces > that have been in progress with patches in existence (please feel free > to add/update ones I missed or reflected inaccurately here): > > (1) Updating AIO to use wait-bit based filtered wakeups (me/wli) > Status: Updated to 2.6.12-rc6, needs review
Here is a little bit of background on the motivation behind this set of patches to update AIO for filtered wakeups:
(a) Since the introduction of filtered wakeups support and the wait_bit_queue infrastructure in mainline, it is no longer sufficient to just embed a wait queue entry in the kiocb for AIO operations involving filtered wakeups. (b) Given that filesystem reads/writes use filtered wakeups underlying wait_on_page_bit, fixing this becomes a pre-req for buffered filesystem AIO. (c) The wait_bit_queue infrastructure actually enables a cleaner implementation of filesystem AIO because it already provides for an action routine intended to allow both blocking and non-blocking or asynchronous behaviour.
As I was rewriting the patches to address this, there is one other change I made to resolve one remaining ugliness in my earlier patchsets - special casing of the form if (wait == NULL) wait = &local_wait to switch to a stack based wait queue entry if not passed a wait queue entry associated with an iocb.
To avoid this, I have tried biting the bullet by including a default wait bit queue entry in the task structure, to be used instead of on-demand allocation of a wait bit queue entry on stack.
All in all, these changes have (hopefully) simplified the code, as well as made it more up-to-date. Comments (including better names etc as requested by Zach) are welcome !
Regards Suparna
-- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |