From: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>
Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re:async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:11:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D665EC9.3EF93C37@kegel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D5D1D02.7080206@netscape.com
John Gardiner Myers wrote:
>
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> >You can actually consider posix AIO using sigtimedwait() to pick up completion
> >notices to fit the definition of completion port if you squint a bit.
> >
> Except that signal queues are far too short to be useful for c10k. It's
> also not possible to allocate a queue (signal number) in a thread safe
> manner.
>
> Posix AIO is a horrid interface. Ben has done much better.
You're quite right. Still, posix AIO with sigtimedwait() might be enough
prior art to invalidate Microsoft's patent on completion ports.
- Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-23 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-30 5:41 async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 8:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-30 13:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 13:52 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 16:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 16:59 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 19:10 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 18:09 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 18:31 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 20:57 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 20:47 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 21:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 10:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-07-30 12:49 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 13:29 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-07-30 21:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 21:54 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31 0:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31 14:46 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31 16:31 ` Charles 'Buck' Krasic
2002-08-01 10:30 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-01 14:47 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-01 15:00 ` Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 16:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 17:30 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-01 16:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 16:41 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for2.5.29) Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 18:01 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-15 23:54 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 1:42 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 1:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 2:00 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 2:16 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 2:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 3:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 3:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 4:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-17 3:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 4:15 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 4:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-11-02 5:12 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-17 5:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 5:24 ` lots of mem on 32 bit machines (was: aio-core why not using SuS?) Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 5:12 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 17:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 21:27 ` 32 bit arch with lots of RAM Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:36 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:15 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-20 0:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-08-17 4:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-16 2:32 ` Rik van Riel
2002-08-16 2:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 9:39 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 10:03 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 11:23 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 11:28 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 13:49 ` Dan Kegel
2002-09-02 18:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-03 12:04 ` aio-core in 2.5 - io_queue_wait and io_getevents Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-09-05 5:21 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 13:43 ` Dan Kegel
2002-08-16 14:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-08-16 14:42 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 15:40 ` John Gardiner Myers
2002-08-23 16:11 ` Dan Kegel [this message]
2002-08-16 1:53 ` Dan Kegel
2002-08-01 19:18 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-01 19:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 19:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-02 8:24 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-02 11:59 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-02 15:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-31 1:20 ` async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Rik van Riel
2002-07-31 1:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-31 13:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 13:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 16:49 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=3D665EC9.3EF93C37@kegel.com \
--to=dank@kegel.com \
--cc=jgmyers@netscape.com \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--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