[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100321132709.GA7962@twister.home>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:27:10 +0100
From: Gabor Gombas <gombasg@...ikabel.hu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
project
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:13:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Why does Linux AIO still suck? Why do we not have a proper interface in
> > userspace for doing asynchronous file system operations?
>
> Good that you mention it, i think it's an excellent example.
>
> The suckage of kernel async IO is for similar reasons: there's an ugly package
> separation problem between the kernel and between glibc - and between the apps
> that would make use of it.
No, kernel async IO sucks because it still does not play well with
buffered I/O. Last time I checked (about a year ago or so), AIO syscall
latencies were much worse when buffered I/O was used compared to direct
I/O. Unfortunately, to achieve good performance with direct I/O, you
need a HW RAID card with lots of on-board cache.
Gabor
--
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