public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>
To: clemc@alumni.cmu.edu
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
	linux-aio <linux-aio@kvack.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] adding aio_readv/writev
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:52:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D8F70F5.4040406@watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200209231851.g8NIpea12782@igw2.watson.ibm.com

Clement T. Cole wrote:

>>>Comments, reasons for not doing async readv/writev directly welcome.
>>>
>
>How about the case for it...  See Pages 404-406 [Section 12.7] of
>Richard Steven's ``Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment''
>[aka APUE].  Richard measures almost a factor of 2 difference
>in system time between using vectored I/O and not using it on
>a Sun and on a x86.
>
It would have been nice to have corresponding data for the async path.

><snip>
>
>So... let's get back to the basic issue....
>
>We know that vectored/scatter gather I/O can help a number of real
>applications ... Richard demonstrated that.  We have some examples
>[like DB2] that have use vectored I/O successfully.  We also
>know asynchronous I/O has been demonstrated to be useful and
>know that some commerical folks have used that.  
>
>I'm gather from some of the comments, adding async/vectored
>will make an already complex subsystem, even more so [i.e. not
>a resounding endorsement for sure this is easy].
>

I wouldn't say so. Adding async vectored I/O to the 2.5 code won't make 
it more complex since the underlying functions
do handle iovec's anyway.

>
>
>So the question is can async vectored I/O be implemented 
>to have a positive gain, such as it did within the traditonal one.
>If the complexity is too high and it does not help much...then
>maybe this is a Chimera to leave alone.   But.... if it can be
>done with some level of elegance... well.... the past history is
>that the commerical folks have used those features.
>

It seems to be a case of "complexity is low, benefits are unknown". I 
guess the best thing is to develop a patch and see what people think 
about the complexity part. The benefits part will become clear only when 
the async interfaces are reasonable functional and we can compare the 
following

- call async readv directly
vs
- multiple calls to io_submit using one iocb (each call corresponds to 
one element of user's vector)
vs
- single call to io_submit using multiple iocb's (each iocb corresponds 
to one element of user's vector)

Since the raw/O_DIRECT interfaces offer asynchrony (through Badari 
Pulavarty & Mingming Cao's patches), it should be possible to test this 
out.

More on this shortly,
- Shailabh


       reply	other threads:[~2002-09-23 19:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <200209231851.g8NIpea12782@igw2.watson.ibm.com>
2002-09-23 19:52 ` Shailabh Nagar [this message]
2002-09-23 20:39   ` [RFC] adding aio_readv/writev Clement T. Cole
2002-09-23 17:59 Chen, Kenneth W
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-20 20:39 Shailabh Nagar
     [not found] ` <1032555981.2082.10.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net>
2002-09-23 14:30   ` Shailabh Nagar
2002-09-23 18:53     ` Clement T. Cole
     [not found]     ` <20020923114104.A11680@redhat.com>
2002-09-24 13:20       ` John Gardiner Myers
2002-09-24 13:52         ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-09-24 14:13           ` John Gardiner Myers

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=3D8F70F5.4040406@watson.ibm.com \
    --to=nagar@watson.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
    --cc=clemc@alumni.cmu.edu \
    --cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
    --cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
    /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