[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait /notify + callback chains
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:18:56PM -0500, wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > A kiobuf is 124 bytes, a buffer_head 96. And a buffer_head is additionally
> > used for caching data, a kiobuf not.
> Go measure the cost of a distant cache miss, then complain about having
> everything in one structure. Also, 1 kiobuf maps 16-128 times as much
> data as a single buffer head.

I'd never dipute that. It was just an answers to Stephen's "a kiobuf is
already smaller".

> > enum kio_flags {
> > KIO_LOANED, /* the calling subsystem wants this buf back */
> > KIO_GIFTED, /* thanks for the buffer, man! */
> > KIO_COW /* copy on write (XXX: not yet) */
> > };
> This is a Really Bad Idea. Having semantics depend on a subtle flag
> determined by a caller is a sure way to

The semantics aren't different for the using subsystem. LOANED vs GIFTED
is an issue for the free function, COW will probably be a page-level mm
thing - though I haven't thought a lot about it yet an am not sure wether
it actually makes sense.

> >
> >
> > struct kio {
> > struct kiovec * kio_data; /* our kiovecs */
> > int kio_ndata; /* # of kiovecs */
> > int kio_flags; /* loaned or giftet? */
> > void * kio_priv; /* caller private data */
> > wait_queue_head_t kio_wait; /* wait queue */
> > };
> >
> > makes it a lot simpler for the subsytems to integrate.
> Keep in mind that using distant memory allocations for kio_data will incur
> additional cache misses.

It could also be a [0] array at the end, allowing for a single allocation,
but that looks more like a implementation detail then a design problem to me.

> The atomic count is probably going to be widely
> used; I see it being applicable to the network stack, block io layers and
> others.

Hmm. Currently it is used only for the multiple buffer_head's per iobuf
cruft, and I don't see why multiple outstanding IOs should be noted in a

> Also, how is information about io completion status passed back
> to the caller?

Yes, there needs to be an kio_errno field - though I wanted to get rid of
it I had to readd in in later versions of my design.


Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.390 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site