>From two comments posted to my "blog"
http://blog.netherlabs.nl/articles/2007/02/04/a-synchronous-programming
Excerpted from the diary of Dragonfly BSD,
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/status/diary.shtml
Remove the asynchronous syscall interface. It was an idea before its time.
However, keep the formalization of the syscall arguments structures.
The original async syscall interface was committed in
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/commits/2004-08/msg00067.html
Comment by Jan Kneschke, lighttpd developer, noting the lack of and need for
aio_stat():
Reading this article feels like reading the code I wrote in the last days
for lighttpd. Even if the network-io was async since the start
(non-blocking), the file-io wasn't. Worst of all was the stat() syscall
which doesn't have a async interface even in POSIX AIO. So it had to be
implemented with threads on our own. At http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/
you can see the impact of async vs. blocking syscalls.
Perhaps relevant.
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software
http://netherlabs.nl Open and Closed source services
-
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]
