From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Refactor AIO to allow multiple AIO implementations Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:44 +0200 Message-ID: <48C91A00.3060403@redhat.com> References: <1221061788-26166-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <48C8CD4E.1020705@redhat.com> <48C91302.70207@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ryan Harper , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:56386 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbYIKNSF (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:18:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48C91302.70207@us.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hmm, what is the long-term plan for this? > > Step one is to move the generic aio bits out of block-raw-posix (which > this patch does). > > Step two is to move the posix-aio routines out of block-raw-posix. > > Step three would be to add a generic interface to allow block-raw-posix > to use multiple aio implementations > > Step four would be to add a new aio implementation Sounds good. > (I think the best > route is a thread-pool based implementation). Not sure about that. linux-aio would have the advantage that the kernel knows about all the requests in flight and probably can do a better job on I/O ordering and scheduling then. But once we can have multiple different implementations we can just try ;) cheers, Gerd