On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:57:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Davide Libenzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Open issues:
>
> > If this is going to be a generic AIO subsystem:
> >
> > - Cancellation of pending request
>
> How about implementing aio_cancel() as a NOP. Can anyone prove that the
> kernel didnt actually attempt to cancel that IO? [but unfortunately
> failed at doing so, because the platters were being written already.]
>
> really, what's the point behind aio_cancel()?
Lemme give you a real-world scenario: Question Answering in a Dialog
System. Your locked-in-memory index ranks documents in a several
million files corpus depending of the chances they have to have what
you're looking for. You have a tenth of a second to read as many of
them as you can, and each seek is 5ms. So you aio-read them,
requesting them in order of ranking up to 200 or so, and see what you
have at the 0.1s deadline. If you're lucky, a combination of cache
(especially if you stat() the whole dir tree on a regular basis to
keep the metadata fresh in cache) and of good io reorganisation by the
scheduler will allow you to get a good number of them and do the
information extraction, scoring and clustering of answers, which is
pure CPU at that point. You *have* to cancel the remaining i/o
because you do not want the disk saturated when the next request
comes, especially if it's 10ms later because the dialog manager found
out it needed a complementary request.
Incidentally, that's something I'm currently implementing for work,
making these aio discussions more interesting that usual :-)
OG.
-
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]
