Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/