[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]
    On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:42:25PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
    > Read it again. You've totally missed lio_listio. Also keep in mind what

    you're saying you prefer glibc to wrap the aio_read/write/fsync and to
    redirect all them to lio_listio after converting the iocb from user API to
    kernel API, right? still I don't see why should we have different iocb,
    I would understsand if you say we should simply overwrite aio_lio_opcode
    inside the aio_read(3) inside glibc and to pass it over to kernel with a
    single syscalls if it's low cost to just set the lio_opcode, but having
    different data structures doesn't sounds the best still. I mean, it
    would be nicer if things would be more consistent.

    > happens with 4G/4G split for x86 which are needed to address the kernel
    > virtual memory starvation issues.

    I don't see how the flushing flood is related to this, this is a normal
    syscall, any issue that applies to these aio_read/write/fsync should
    apply to all other syscalls too. Also the 4G starvation will be more
    likely fixed by x86-64 or in software by using a softpagesize larger
    than 4k so that the mem_map array doesn't load all the zone_normal.
    That'll break backwards compatibility w.r.t. to the page size offset but
    it'll at least not generate a so significant performance regression for
    syscall performance (again this is generic issue, not related to
    async-io as far as I can tell).

    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 13:28    [W:0.025 / U:47.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site