[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070212131257.565f8066@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:12:57 +0000
From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
Johann Borck <johann.borck@...sedata.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [take36 10/10] kevent: Kevent based generic AIO.
> I'm sure others would want them then for their favourite system call combo
> too. If they were really useful it might make more sense to have a batch()
> system call that works for arbitary calls, but I'm not convinced yet
> it's even needed. It would be certainly ugly.
batch() would possibly make a lot of sense in terms of the fibril/thread
based removal for the need for all the AIO stuff, just to provide a
natural way to group and order sequences of synchronous operations into
asynchronous groups.
I am extremely sceptical about the need for aio_sendfile_path since with
sendfile/sendpath hacking around there didn't seem to be much gain.
I'm even more sceptical of the header buffer stuff as while other OS's do
that as a hack to make TCP packetising work we simply fixed the root
problem with TCP_CORK
Alan
-
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