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
next parent 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