From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Badari Pulavarty Subject: Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:28:00 -0700 Message-ID: <44C8DB80.6030007@us.ibm.com> References: <1153905495613@2ka.mipt.ru> <11539054952574@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060726100431.GA7518@infradead.org> <20060726101919.GB2715@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060726103001.GA10139@infradead.org> <44C77C23.7000803@redhat.com> <44C796C3.9030404@us.ibm.com> <1153982954.3887.9.camel@frecb000686> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Christoph Hellwig , Evgeniy Polyakov , lkml , David Miller , netdev , Suparna Bhattacharya Return-path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:24779 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932548AbWG0P2G (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:28:06 -0400 To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?S=E9bastien_Dugu=E9?= In-Reply-To: <1153982954.3887.9.camel@frecb000686> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org S=E9bastien Dugu=E9 wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:22 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > =20 >> Ulrich Drepper wrote: >> =20 >>> Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> =20 >>> =20 >>>>> My personal opinion on existing AIO is that it is not the right d= esign. >>>>> Benjamin LaHaise agree with me (if I understood him right), >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>> I completely agree with that aswell. >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>> I agree, too, but the current code is not the last of the line. Su= parna >>> has a st of patches which make the current kernel aio code work muc= h >>> better and especially make it really usable to implement POSIX AIO. >>> >>> In Ottawa we were talking about submitting it and Suparna will. We= just >>> thought about a little longer timeframe. I guess it could be >>> accelerated since he mostly has the patch done. But I don't know h= er >>> schedule. >>> >>> Important here is, don't base any decision on the current aio >>> implementation. >>> =20 >>> =20 >> Ulrich, >> >> Suparna mentioned your interest in making POSIX glibc aio work with=20 >> kernel-aio at OLS. >> We thought taking a re-look at the (kernel side) work BULL did, woul= d be=20 >> a nice starting >> point. I re-based those patches to 2.6.18-rc2 and sent it to Zach Br= own=20 >> for review before >> sending them out to list. >> >> These patches does NOT make AIO any cleaner. All they do is add=20 >> functionality to support >> POSIX AIO easier. These are >> >> [ PATCH 1/3 ] Adding signal notification for event completion >> >> [ PATCH 2/3 ] lio (listio) completion semantics >> >> [ PATCH 3/3 ] cancel_fd support >> =20 > > Badari, > > Thanks for refreshing those patches, they have been sitting here > for quite some time now and collected dust. > > I also think Suparna's patchset for doing buffered AIO would be > a real plus here. > > =20 >> Suparna explained these in the following article: >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/148755/ >> >> If you think, this is a reasonable direction/approach for the kernel= and=20 >> you would take care >> of glibc side of things - I can spend time on these patches, getting= =20 >> them to reasonable shape >> and push for inclusion. >> =20 > > Ulrich, I you want to have a look at how those patches are put to > use in libposix-aio, have a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/p= aiol. > > It could be a starting point for glibc. > > Thanks, > > S=E9bastien. > > =20 Sebastien, Suparna mentioned at Ulrich wants us to concentrate on kernel-side=20 support, so that he can look at glibc side of things (along with other work he is already=20 doing). So, if we can get an agreement on what kind of kernel support is needed - we can=20 focus our efforts on kernel side first and leave glibc enablement to capable hand= s=20 of Uli :) Thanks, Badari