lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
    On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 03:56:14PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
    > Async syscall submissions are a _one time_ things. It's not like a live fd
    > that you can push inside epoll and avoid the multiple O(N) passes.
    > First of all, the amount of syscalls that you'd submit in a vectored way
    > are limited. They do not depend on the total number of connections, but on

    I regularly see apps that want to submit 1000 I/Os at once.
    Every submit. But it's all against one or two file descriptors. So, if
    you return to userspace, they have to walk all 1000 async_results every
    time, just to see which completed and which didn't. And *then* go wait
    for the ones that didn't. If they just wait for them all, they aren't
    spinning cpu on the -EASYNC operations.
    I'm not saying that "don't return a completion if we can
    non-block it" is inherently wrong or not a good idea. I'm saying that
    we need a way to flag them efficiently.

    Joel

    --

    Life's Little Instruction Book #80

    "Slow dance"

    Joel Becker
    Principal Software Developer
    Oracle
    E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
    Phone: (650) 506-8127
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-07 01:09    [W:6.068 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site