From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Llnjw-0000Qs-3M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:08 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Llnjr-0000HO-AQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:07 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36777 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Llnjr-0000HJ-4C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:03 -0400
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.145]:12885)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Llnjq-00068Y-RB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:02 -0400
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so946176qwf.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49C7C392.3030001@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:14:58 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Linux AIO support when using O_DIRECT
References: <1237823124-6417-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<49C7B620.8030203@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <49C7B620.8030203@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> Instead of introducing yet another layer of indirection, you could add 
> block-raw-linux-aio, which would be registered before block-raw-posix 
> (which is realy block-raw-threadpool...), and resist a ->probe() if 
> caching is enabled.

block-raw-posix needs a major overhaul.  That's why I'm not even 
considering committing the patch as is.

I'd like to see the O_DIRECT bounce buffering removed in favor of the 
DMA API bouncing.  Once that happens, raw_read and raw_pread can 
disappear.  block-raw-posix becomes much simpler.

We would drop the signaling stuff and have the thread pool use an fd to 
signal.  The big problem with that right now is that it'll cause a 
performance regression for certain platforms until we have the IO thread 
in place.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori