On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:33:49PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > This looks very similar to the libaio interface.. > > I did look at aio. It may be possible to use aio context in place > of ioq, and I'm open to that. I was actually modeling ioq more > after epoll than aio. It just seemed simpler to treat an ioq as a > standard fd.
libaio is designed to be used along with an eventfd that provides the epoll like semantics you are talking about. Each time you call io_submit you can call io_set_eventfd() on the iocb and the aio engine will trigger that eventfd when the IO completes. poll or epoll on the eventfd fd. > My concern is that supporting a more flexible API, like aoi, would > effectively result in losing some desirable feature handling > completions, such as kernel bypass or reducing interrupts. With > aio, I'm unsure about the impact of supporting callback > notifications and the selection of each aio context on a per request > basis. I'm not sure what you are refering to here? Are you mixing up POSIX aio with libaio? They are totally different. libaio has no callback notification mechanism, just io_getevents. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
