From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:30:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20130821123032.8d0668d34231aabeddff24ea@linux-foundation.org> References: <1374774659-13121-1-git-send-email-dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> <20130821130231.GG13330@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Kleikamp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Maxim V. Patlasov" , Zach Brown , linux-aio@kvack.org To: Benjamin LaHaise Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130821130231.GG13330@kvack.org> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > One of the major problems your changeset continues to carry is that your > new read_iter/write_iter operations permit blocking (implicitely), which > really isn't what we want for aio. If you're going to introduce a new api, > it should be made non-blocking, and enforce that non-blocking requirement It's been so incredibly long and I've forgotten everything AIO :( In this context, "non-blocking" means no synchronous IO, yes? Even for indirect blocks, etc. What about accidental D-state blockage in page reclaim, or against random sleeping locks? Also, why does this requirement exist? "99% async" is not good enough? How come? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org