From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: John Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: aio_poll in 2.6?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:50:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030516195025.4bf5dd8d.akpm@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200305170054.RAA10802@pagarcia.nscp.aoltw.net>
John Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> It's basically waiting for someone to merge the patch. There were
> some people making unsubstantiated claims that it didn't scale, but
> the available benchmarks showed that it scaled perfectly across the
> parameters tested.
What is the testing status of this?
Have any real-life applications been converted?
Does it require libaio changes to test?
>
> +int async_poll(struct kiocb *iocb, int events);
> +
growl. Please don't put function prototypes in .c files. It defeats
typechecking. I've moved this to aio.h.
> +int async_poll(struct kiocb *iocb, int events)
> +{
> + unsigned int mask;
> + struct async_poll_iocb *apiocb = kiocb_to_apiocb(iocb);
> +
> + /* Fast path */
> + if (iocb->ki_filp->f_op && iocb->ki_filp->f_op->poll) {
> + mask = iocb->ki_filp->f_op->poll(iocb->ki_filp, NULL);
> + mask &= events | POLLERR | POLLHUP;
> + if (mask & events)
> + return events;
> + }
> +
> + init_poll_funcptr(&apiocb->pt, async_poll_queue_proc);
> + apiocb->armed = &apiocb;
> + apiocb->outofmem = 0;
> + apiocb->events = events;
> + apiocb->ehead = NULL;
> +
> + iocb->ki_users++;
There is no locking around this modification of ->ki_users. Is this
correct?
> + wmb();
Barriers always need comments explaining why they are there.
> +
> + mask = DEFAULT_POLLMASK;
> + if (iocb->ki_filp->f_op && iocb->ki_filp->f_op->poll)
> + mask = iocb->ki_filp->f_op->poll(iocb->ki_filp, &apiocb->pt);
> + mask &= events | POLLERR | POLLHUP;
> + if (mask && xchg(&apiocb->armed, NULL)) {
> + async_poll_freewait(apiocb, NULL);
> + aio_complete(iocb, mask, 0);
> + }
> + if (unlikely(apiocb->outofmem) && xchg(&apiocb->armed, NULL)) {
> + async_poll_freewait(apiocb, NULL);
> + aio_put_req(iocb);
> + aio_put_req(iocb);
Is the double-put intentional?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-17 2:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.mc7vl0v.u7u2ah@ifi.uio.no>
2003-05-17 0:54 ` [PATCH] Re: aio_poll in 2.6? John Myers
2003-05-17 2:50 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2003-05-19 19:38 ` [PATCH] Re: aio_poll in 2.6 John Myers
2003-05-19 19:48 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-19 21:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-05-19 21:33 ` John Myers
2003-05-19 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
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=20030516195025.4bf5dd8d.akpm@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=jgmyers@netscape.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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