[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4 of 4] Introduce aio system call submission and completion system calls
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 18:15, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Do you have any numbers how this compares cycle wise to just doing
> > clone+syscall+exit in user space?
> Not yet, no. Release early, release often, and all that. I'll throw
> something together.

So what was the motivation for doing this then? It's only point
is to have smaller startup costs for AIO than clone+fork without
fixing the VFS code to be a state machine, right?

I'm personally unclear if it's really less work to teach a lot of
code in the kernel about a new thread abstraction than changing VFS.

Your patches don't look that complicated yet but you openly
admitted you waved away many of the more tricky issues (like
signals etc.) and I bet there are yet-unknown side effects
of this too that will need more changes.

I would expect a VFS solution to be the fastest of any at least.

I'm not sure the fibrils thing will be that much faster than
a possibly somewhat fast pathed for this case clone+syscall+exit.

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: 2007-01-31 18:27    [W:0.166 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site