Quoting r. Libor Michalek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] (repost) sdp: replace mlock with get_user_pages > > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:51:45PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Libor> Always call aio_complete() immediately when > > > Libor> iocb_complete() is called, and only spawn the work thread > > > Libor> to unlock the memory after the aio_complete() call. The > > > Libor> patch is below. > > > > Libor, I dont think its a good idea - this will break other assumptions, > > like the assumption that the task mm isnt destroyed before we unlock > > the memory. > > That's a good point. > > > > Another alternative would be to always complete aios asynchronously, > > > which should preserve the order. I guess this would hurt latency for > > > small ios... > > > > To avoid hurting latency, lets count the number of outstanding > > asynchronous AIOs, and if there are asynchronous AIOs complete > > all of them asynchronously. > > > > Does this make sense? > > Yes, except that the current iocb code does not reference individual > sockets anywhere, and do_iocb_complete would have to be the function > which decremented the per connection counter of outstanding AIOs. Also, > since we don't have to do get_user_pages a second time on the send > path, this would only need to be done on the recv path. > > -Libor >
I thought about this some more: what if we set users to 1 before releasing the irq spinlock, and call sdp_conn_unlock in thread context after completing the aio iocb? Any synchronous transfer would then wait till socket is unloacked. -- MST - Michael S. Tsirkin _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
