[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701311821.59579.ak@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:21:59 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 4] Introduce aio system call submission and completion system calls
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 18:15, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Do you have any numbers how this compares cycle wise to just doing
> > clone+syscall+exit in user space?
>
> Not yet, no. Release early, release often, and all that. I'll throw
> something together.
So what was the motivation for doing this then? It's only point
is to have smaller startup costs for AIO than clone+fork without
fixing the VFS code to be a state machine, right?
I'm personally unclear if it's really less work to teach a lot of
code in the kernel about a new thread abstraction than changing VFS.
Your patches don't look that complicated yet but you openly
admitted you waved away many of the more tricky issues (like
signals etc.) and I bet there are yet-unknown side effects
of this too that will need more changes.
I would expect a VFS solution to be the fastest of any at least.
I'm not sure the fibrils thing will be that much faster than
a possibly somewhat fast pathed for this case clone+syscall+exit.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists