Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:57:17 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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).
Andrea - 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/
|  |