linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <ben@communityfibre.ca>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Support read/write with non-iter file-ops
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:36:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190719003655.GO30636@minitux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718235616.GM29731@kvack.org>

On Thu 18 Jul 16:56 PDT 2019, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 04:43:52PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 18 Jul 16:17 PDT 2019, Al Viro wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 04:10:54PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > Implement a wrapper for aio_read()/write() to allow async IO on files
> > > > not implementing the iter version of read/write, such as sysfs. This
> > > > mimics how readv/writev uses non-iter ops in do_loop_readv_writev().
> > > 
> > > IDGI.  How would that IO manage to be async?  And what's the point
> > > using aio in such situations in the first place?
> > 
> > The point is that an application using aio to submit io operations on a
> > set of files, can use the same mechanism to read/write files that
> > happens to be implemented by driver only implementing read/write (not
> > read_iter/write_iter) in the registered file_operations struct, such as
> > kernfs.
> > 
> > In this particular case I have a sysfs file that is accessing hardware
> > and hence will block for a while and using this patch I can io_submit()
> > a write and handle the completion of this in my normal event loop.
> > 
> > 
> > Each individual io operation will be just as synchronous as the current
> > iter-based mechanism - for the drivers that implement that.
> 
> Just adding the fops is not enough.  I have patches floating around at
> Solace that add thread based fallbacks for files that don't have an aio
> read / write implementation, but I'm not working on that code any more.

My bad. Took another look and now I see the bigger picture of how this
is currently implemented and why just adding the fops would defeat the
purpose of the api.

Sorry for the noise.

> The thread based methods were quite useful in applications that had a need
> for using other kernel infrastructure in their main event loops.
> 

Yes indeed.

Regards,
Bjorn

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-19  0:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-18 23:10 [PATCH] aio: Support read/write with non-iter file-ops Bjorn Andersson
2019-07-18 23:17 ` Al Viro
2019-07-18 23:43   ` Bjorn Andersson
2019-07-18 23:56     ` Benjamin LaHaise
2019-07-19  0:36       ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2019-07-19  0:07     ` Al Viro

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=20190719003655.GO30636@minitux \
    --to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=ben@communityfibre.ca \
    --cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).