On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:41:58PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > Yeah, of course. I do not plan revolutions. Just asking if it's a possible > > thing to do. I can mlock the userspace ring, if imposing that burden over > > aio_complete() is seen as too heavy. > > I'm not sure I follow what you're doing -- why isn't asyncfd merely calling > io_getevents() instead of reinventing everything the ringbuffer does? The > aio ringbuffer is already locked in memory. Fwiw, the aio ringbuffer was > originally wired up to a file descriptor, but that gave way to the actual > syscall in order to enforce proper typechecking and typical usage scenarios > with timeouts.
The purpose of asyncfd is to provide a pollable (by the mean of f_op->poll) device that can be hosted inside a standard select/poll/epoll wait subsystem, and that, at the same time, provide a zero-copy way for kernel code (KAIO and syslets/threadlets were my thought) to deliver results to userspace. > Also, there have been patches floating around for aio_poll and a way to get > epoll wakeups into the aio event queue. They deserve serious consideration > if this asyncfd seems necessary. I don't want to talk about the AIO poll code, because last time I saw it, it did not look shiny. But I think we can agree that ppl needs to have a way to wait for both block I/O (covered by either KAIO or syslets/threadlets) and all the other world (covered by epoll). This has been pretty clear for me, looking at the continuous request I got to provide block I/O completions through epoll, and looking at the hackage that ppl has currently to do in userspace to achieve that. Now that I'm seeing I can wait for both block and net I/O, I got excited ;) - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
