Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock

> Ken uses the other (superior!) way of implementing ringbuffers: the head
> and tail pointers (the naming of which AIO appears to have reversed) are
> not constrained to the ringsize - they are simply allowed to wrap through
> 0xfffffff.

A-ha!  That sure sounds great.

I'd be happy to see the kernel side fs/aio.c ring management move in
that direction, sure, with a specific patch to do that.

I get less excited when we talk about changing the index semantics as
part of supporting serialization of the ring with userspace.

- z
-
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/

References:
- [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
  - From: [email protected] (Ken Chen)
- Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
  - From: Zach Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Don't depend on work queues
Next by Date: Re: I give up
Previous by thread: Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
Next by thread: Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]