[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50105454.5080400@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:47:24 +0530
From: Ankit Jain <jankit@...e.de>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, bcrl@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make io_submit non-blocking
On 07/25/2012 04:07 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:05PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
[snip]
>> With this patch, io_submit prepares all the kiocbs and then
>> adds (kicks) them to ctx->run_list (kicked) in one go and then
>> schedules the workqueue. The actual operations are not executed
>> on io_submit's process context, so it can return very quickly.
>
> Strong nack; this isn't safe without having done the work to ensure that
> all the task_struct references under the f_op->aio_*() paths won't be
> horribly confused to find a kernel thread instead of the process that
> called io_submit().
>
> The one-off handling of the submitters's cred is an indication that
> there might be other cases to worry about :).
Makes sense, I will try to look into this.
>> 3. Also, I tried not using aio_queue_work from io_submit call, and instead
>> depending on an already scheduled one or the iocbs being run when
>> io_getevents gets called. This seemed to give improved perfomance. But
>> does this constitute as change of api semantics?
>
> You can't rely on io_getevents() being called for forward progress. Its
> perfectly reasonable for a task to wait for io completion by polling an
> eventfd that aio_complete() notifies, for instance.
Ah okay, didn't realize that.
Thanks,
--
Ankit Jain
SUSE Labs
--
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