linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130821123032.8d0668d34231aabeddff24ea@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:30:32 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc:	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
	Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org> wrote:

> One of the major problems your changeset continues to carry is that your 
> new read_iter/write_iter operations permit blocking (implicitely), which 
> really isn't what we want for aio.  If you're going to introduce a new api, 
> it should be made non-blocking, and enforce that non-blocking requirement 

It's been so incredibly long and I've forgotten everything AIO :(

In this context, "non-blocking" means no synchronous IO, yes?  Even for
indirect blocks, etc.  What about accidental D-state blockage in page
reclaim, or against random sleeping locks?

Also, why does this requirement exist?  "99% async" is not good enough?
How come?

--
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/