From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KnF0a-0003ua-7R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:02:00 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KnF0W-0003r7-Mc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:01:57 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39748 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KnF0W-0003qs-98
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:01:56 -0400
Received: from mail-gx0-f19.google.com ([209.85.217.19]:36201)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KnF0W-0004O4-58
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:01:56 -0400
Received: by gxk12 with SMTP id 12so7358260gxk.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48EB87EE.9050003@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:01:50 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [5323] Implement an fd pool to get real AIO with
	posix-aio
References: <E1KjFj7-0002oA-Vj@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<48EB8393.8020005@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <48EB8393.8020005@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>   
>> The fundamental problem with posix-aio is that it limits itself to one thread
>> per-file descriptor.  I don't know why this is, but this patch provides a simple
>> mechanism to work around this (duplicating the file descriptor).
>>
>> This isn't a great solution, but it seems like a reasonable intermediate step
>> between posix-aio and a custom thread-pool to replace it.
>>     
>
> Are there plans to support vectored block requests with the thread pool
> implementation?
>   

Yes, that's the primary reason for doing a new thread pool 
implementation.  Of course, we need a zero-copy DMA API before such a 
thing would make sense.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> cheers,
>   Gerd
>
>
>