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]