[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait

    On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
    > s/impossible/unpleasant/. ll_rw_blk blocks; it should be possible to have
    > a non blocking variant that does all of the setup in the caller's context.
    > Yes, I know that we can do it with a kernel thread, but that isn't as
    > clean and it significantly penalises small ios (hint: databases issue
    > *lots* of small random ios and a good chunk of large ios).

    Ehh.. submit_bh() does everything you want. And, btw, ll_rw_block() does
    NOT block. Never has. Never will.

    (Small correction: it doesn't block on anything else than allocating a
    request structure if needed, and quite frankly, you have to block
    SOMETIME. You can't just try to throw stuff at the device faster than it
    can take it. Think of it as a "there can only be this many IO's in

    If you want to use kiobuf's because you think they are asycnrhonous and
    bh's aren't, then somebody has been feeding you a lot of crap. The kiobuf
    PR department seems to have been working overtime on some FUD strategy.

    The fact is that bh's can do MORE than kiobuf's. They have all the
    callbacks in place etc. They merge and sort correctly. Oh, they have
    limitations: one "bh" always describes just one memory area with a
    "start,len" kind of thing. That's fine - scatter-gather is pushed
    downwards, and the upper layers do not even need to know about it. Which
    is what layering is all about, after all.

    Traditionally, a "bh" is only _used_ for small areas, but that's not a
    "bh" issue, that's a memory management issue. The code should pretty much
    handle the issue of a single 64kB bh pretty much as-is, but nothing
    creates them: the VM layer only creates bh's in sizes ranging from 512
    bytes to a single page.

    The IO layer could do more, but there has yet to be anybody who needed
    more (becase once you hit a page-size, you tend to get into
    scatter-gather, so you want to have one bh per area - and let the
    low-level IO level handle the actual merging etc).

    Right now, on many normal setups, the thing that limits our ability to do
    big IO requests is actually the fact that IDE cannot do more than 128kB
    per request, for example (256 sectors). It's not the bh's or the VM layer.

    If you want to make a "raw disk device", you can do so TODAY with bh's.
    How? Don't use "bread()" (which allocates the backing store and creates
    the cache). Allocate a separate anonymous bh (or multiple), and set them
    up to point to whatever data source/sink you have, and let it rip. All
    asynchronous. All with nice completion callbacks. All with existing code,
    no kiobuf's in sight.

    What more do you think your kiobuf's should be able to do?


    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 13:03    [W:12.695 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site