On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:52:13PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
> >let me clarify this: i very much like your AIO patchset in general, in
> >the sense that it 'completes' the AIO implementation: finally
> >everything
> >can be done via it, greatly increasing its utility and hopefully its
> >penetration. This is the most important step, by far.
>
> We violently agree on this :).
There is also the old kernel_thread based method that should probably be
compared, especially if pre-created threads are thrown into the mix. Also,
since the old days, a lot of thread scaling issues have been fixed that
could even make userland threads more viable.
> Would your strategy be to update the syscall implementations to share
> data in task_struct so that there isn't as significant a change in
> behaviour? (sharing current->ioprio, instead if just inheriting it,
> for example.). We'd be betting that there would be few of these and
> that they'd be pretty reasonable to share?
Priorities cannot be shared, as they have to adapt to the per-request
priority when we get down to the nitty gitty of POSIX AIO, as otherwise
realtime issues like keepalive transmits will be handled incorrectly.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
