From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Refactor AIO to allow multiple AIO implementations
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:04:16 -0500
Message-ID: <48C92560.4000501@us.ibm.com>
References: <1221061788-26166-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <48C8CD4E.1020705@redhat.com> <48C91302.70207@us.ibm.com> <48C91A00.3060403@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:40724 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751585AbYIKOFH (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:07 -0400
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234])
	by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8BE56AO006147
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:06 -0400
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64])
	by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m8BE56i2225570
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:06 -0400
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m8BE55Wd019631
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <48C91A00.3060403@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> 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 ;)
>   

But linux-aio doesn't work unless you're using O_DIRECT so for a lot of 
users, it's not very helpful.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> cheers,
>   Gerd
>
>