Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code

From: Zach Brown
Date: Wed Feb 14 2007 - 21:53:56 EST


But the whole point is that the notion of a "register" is wrong in the
first place. [...]

forget about it then. The thing we "register" is dead-simple:

struct async_head_user {
struct syslet_uatom __user **completion_ring;
unsigned long ring_size_bytes;
unsigned long max_nr_threads;
};

this can be passed in to sys_async_exec() as a second pointer, and the
kernel can put the expected-completion pointer (and the user ring idx
pointer) into its struct atom. It's just a few instructions, and only in
the cachemiss case.

that would make completions arbitrarily split-up-able. No registration
whatsoever. A waiter could specify which ring's events it is interested
in. A 'ring' could be a single-entry thing as well, for a single
instance of pending IO.

I like this, too. (Not surprisingly, having outlined something like it in a mail in one of the previous threads :)).

I'll bring up the POSIX AIO "list" IO case. It wants to issue a group of IOs and sleep until they all return. Being able to cheaply instantiate a ring implicitly with the submission of the IO calls in the list will make implementing this almost too easy. It'd obviously just wait for that list's ring to drain.

I hope. There might be complications around the edges (waiting for multiple list IOs to drain?), but it seems like this would be on the right track.

I might be alone in caring about having a less ridiculous POSIX AIO interface in glibc, though, I'll admit. It seems like it'd be a pretty sad missed opportunity if we rolled a fantastic general AIO interface and left glibc to still screw around with it's own manual threading :/.

- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/