From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758028Ab0CPUgH (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:36:07 -0400 Received: from isrv.corpit.ru ([81.13.33.159]:33696 "EHLO isrv.corpit.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757990Ab0CPUgE (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:36:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4B9FEBB0.4020300@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:36:00 +0300 From: Michael Tokarev Organization: Telecom Service, JSC User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Moyer CC: linux-aio@kvack.org, Linux-kernel Subject: Re: aio: compat_ioctl issue? References: <4B956E5B.9020302@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B957122.4060007@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B957AF3.6040801@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B957D20.4010904@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B994022.6030703@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B994888.8020007@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <4B994EFE.70005@msgid.tls.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=804465C5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Moyer wrote: [] > Sorry for taking so long on this. I only tested the case where niovs > > fast_segs, and I missed an obvious thing: I didn't assign the return > pointer to the proper iovec. There's no need to be sorry really. Because, well, the whole thing isn't quite useful anyway: running proper 64bit code is preferable ;) I actually tried the thing, running a guest right now, which in turn is running a quick benchmark and appears to perform quite good at it too. > So, this patch should get you going. Well, I already switched to 64bit kvm binary for my case, and actually that one makes alot more sense anyway: there's no conversion like this needed, and no 32<=>64bit mode switching either. (Actually 32bit code in this my case is slower elsewhere too). By the way, how about the case when we've several {write,read}v in the iocb array? Will each use the same fast_segs array from the beginning, overwriting data of previous iocb element? :) Just... curious :) Thank you for your support! You can add my Tested-By: Michael Tokarev if you want. Thanks! /mjt