From: Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>
To: clemc@alumni.cmu.edu
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@kvack.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] adding aio_readv/writev
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:52:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D8F70F5.4040406@watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200209231851.g8NIpea12782@igw2.watson.ibm.com
Clement T. Cole wrote:
>>>Comments, reasons for not doing async readv/writev directly welcome.
>>>
>
>How about the case for it... See Pages 404-406 [Section 12.7] of
>Richard Steven's ``Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment''
>[aka APUE]. Richard measures almost a factor of 2 difference
>in system time between using vectored I/O and not using it on
>a Sun and on a x86.
>
It would have been nice to have corresponding data for the async path.
><snip>
>
>So... let's get back to the basic issue....
>
>We know that vectored/scatter gather I/O can help a number of real
>applications ... Richard demonstrated that. We have some examples
>[like DB2] that have use vectored I/O successfully. We also
>know asynchronous I/O has been demonstrated to be useful and
>know that some commerical folks have used that.
>
>I'm gather from some of the comments, adding async/vectored
>will make an already complex subsystem, even more so [i.e. not
>a resounding endorsement for sure this is easy].
>
I wouldn't say so. Adding async vectored I/O to the 2.5 code won't make
it more complex since the underlying functions
do handle iovec's anyway.
>
>
>So the question is can async vectored I/O be implemented
>to have a positive gain, such as it did within the traditonal one.
>If the complexity is too high and it does not help much...then
>maybe this is a Chimera to leave alone. But.... if it can be
>done with some level of elegance... well.... the past history is
>that the commerical folks have used those features.
>
It seems to be a case of "complexity is low, benefits are unknown". I
guess the best thing is to develop a patch and see what people think
about the complexity part. The benefits part will become clear only when
the async interfaces are reasonable functional and we can compare the
following
- call async readv directly
vs
- multiple calls to io_submit using one iocb (each call corresponds to
one element of user's vector)
vs
- single call to io_submit using multiple iocb's (each iocb corresponds
to one element of user's vector)
Since the raw/O_DIRECT interfaces offer asynchrony (through Badari
Pulavarty & Mingming Cao's patches), it should be possible to test this
out.
More on this shortly,
- Shailabh
next parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-23 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200209231851.g8NIpea12782@igw2.watson.ibm.com>
2002-09-23 19:52 ` Shailabh Nagar [this message]
2002-09-23 20:39 ` [RFC] adding aio_readv/writev Clement T. Cole
2002-09-23 17:59 Chen, Kenneth W
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-20 20:39 Shailabh Nagar
[not found] ` <1032555981.2082.10.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
2002-09-23 14:30 ` Shailabh Nagar
2002-09-23 18:53 ` Clement T. Cole
[not found] ` <20020923114104.A11680@redhat.com>
2002-09-24 13:20 ` John Gardiner Myers
2002-09-24 13:52 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-09-24 14:13 ` John Gardiner Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D8F70F5.4040406@watson.ibm.com \
--to=nagar@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=clemc@alumni.cmu.edu \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.