[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: aio
On Friday 21 December 2001 14:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Gerold Jury wrote:
> > It is simply too early for sexy discussions. For me, the most
> > appealing part of AIO is the socket handling. It seems a little bit
> > broken in the current glibc emulation/implementation. Recv and send
> > operations are ordered when used on the same socket handle. Thus a
> > recv must be finished before a subsequent send will happen. Good idea
> > for files, bad for sockets.
> is this a fundamental limitation expressed in the interface, or just an
> implementational limitation? On sockets this is indeed a big problem, HTTP
> pipelining wants completely separate receive/send queues.
> Ingo

That is a very good question.

The Single UNIX ® Specification, Version 2 has the following to say.

If _POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO is defined and synchronised I/O is enabled on the
file associated with aiocbp->aio_fildes, the behaviour of this function is
according to the definitions of synchronised I/O data integrity completion
and synchronised I/O file integrity completion.

Maybe a was a little bit too fast in blaming glibc. I will go and look for
more documentation about disabling synchronised I/O on a socket.

Dup()licating the socket handle is an easy workaround, but now i am
convinced, a little bit man page digging will be lots of fun.

I hope the efforts of Benjamin LaHaise receive more attention and as soon as
i know more about disabling synchronised I/O on sockets i will send an other


I love AIO
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.095 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site