Sébastien Dugué wrote:
aio completion notification
I looked over this now but I don't think I understand everything. Or I
don't see how it all is integrated. And no, I'm not looking at the
proposed glibc code since would mean being tainted.
Details:
---
A struct
This patch includes asynchronous propagation of file's data into VFS
cache and aio_sendfile() implementation.
Network aio_sendfile() works lazily - it asynchronously populates pages
into the VFS cache (which can be used for various tricks with adaptive
readahead) and then uses usual -sendfile()
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:44:23AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX AIO.
I haven't seen a description of the interface so
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 08:28 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Sébastien Dugué wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:22 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
My personal opinion on existing AIO is that it is not the right design.
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:44 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX AIO.
I haven't seen a description of the interface so far.
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 14:02 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:44 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 14:02 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:44 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX
Sébastien Dugué wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:22 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
My personal opinion on existing AIO is that it is not the right design.
Benjamin LaHaise agree with me (if I understood him right),
Suparna mentioned at Ulrich wants us to concentrate on kernel-side
support, so that he can look at glibc side of things (along with
other work he is already doing). So, if we can get an agreement on
what kind of kernel support is needed - we can focus our efforts on
kernel side first and
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:14 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
Suparna mentioned at Ulrich wants us to concentrate on kernel-side
support, so that he can look at glibc side of things (along with
other work he is already doing). So, if we can get an agreement on
what kind of kernel support is needed
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX AIO.
I haven't seen a description of the interface so far. Would be good if
it existed. But I briefly mentioned one quirk in
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:44 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Before we spend too much time cleaning up and merging into mainline -
I would like an agreement that what we add is good enough for glibc
POSIX AIO.
I haven't seen a description of the interface so far.
This patch includes asynchronous propagation of file's data into VFS
cache and aio_sendfile() implementation.
Network aio_sendfile() works lazily - it asynchronously populates pages
into the VFS cache (which can be used for various tricks with adaptive
readahead) and then uses usual -sendfile()
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:18:15PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
This patch includes asynchronous propagation of file's data into VFS
cache and aio_sendfile() implementation.
Network aio_sendfile() works lazily - it asynchronously populates pages
into the VFS cache (which can be used for
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:18:15PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
This patch includes asynchronous propagation of file's data into VFS
cache and aio_sendfile() implementation.
Network aio_sendfile() works lazily - it asynchronously populates pages
into the VFS cache (which can be used for
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:04:31 +0100
And to be honest, I don't think adding all this code is acceptable
if it can't replace the existing aio code while keeping the
interface. So while you interface looks pretty sane the
implementation needs a lot of
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:08:49PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:00:13AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
struct address_space_operations ext2_aops = {
+ .get_block = ext2_get_block,
No way in hell. For whatever you do
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:04:31AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:18:15PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
This patch includes asynchronous propagation of file's data into VFS
cache and aio_sendfile() implementation.
Network aio_sendfile()
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:13:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:08:49PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:00:13AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
struct address_space_operations ext2_aops = {
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:19:21PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
I stopped to work on AIO, since neither existing, nor mine
implementation were able to outperform sync speeds (one of the major problems
in my implementation is get_user_pages() overhead, which can be
completely eliminated with
David Miller wrote:
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:04:31 +0100
And to be honest, I don't think adding all this code is acceptable
if it can't replace the existing aio code while keeping the
interface. So while you interface looks pretty sane the
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
My personal opinion on existing AIO is that it is not the right design.
Benjamin LaHaise agree with me (if I understood him right),
I completely agree with that aswell.
I agree, too, but the current code is not the last of the line. Suparna
has a st of patches which
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Networking and disk AIO have significantly different needs.
Therefore, I really don't see it as reasonable to expect
a merge of these two things. It doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure about that. The current aio interface isn't exactly nice
for disk I/O either.
23 matches
Mail list logo
