[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070226192001.GA17892@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:20:02 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:56:33PM -0600, Chris Friesen (cfriesen@...tel.com) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> >I never ever tried to say _everything_ must be driven by events.
> >IO must be driven, it is a must IMO.
>
> Do you disagree with Linus' post about the difficulty of treating
> open(), fstat(), page faults, etc. as events? Or do you not consider
> them to be IO?
>From practical point of view - yes some of that processes are complex
enough to not attract attention as async usage model.
But I'm absolutely for the scenario, when several operations are
performed asynchronously like open+stat+fadvice+sendfile.
By IO I meant something which has end result, and that result must be
enough to start async processing - data in the buffer for example.
Async open I would combine with actual data processing - that one can be
a one event.
> Chris
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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