Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]

From: Dan Kegel (
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 08:43:34 EST

Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:42:25PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > > Now reading the SuS specifications I also like less and less our current
> > > kernel API of this sumbit_io, the SuS does exactly what I suggested
> > > originally that is aio_read/aio_write/aio_fsync as separate calls. So
> > > the merging effect mentioned by Ben cannot be taken advantage of by the
> > > kernel anyways because userspace will issue separate calls for each
> > > command.
> >
> > Read it again. You've totally missed lio_listio. Also keep in mind what
> >
> Also, wasn't the fact that the API was designed to support both POSIX
> and completion port style semantics, another reason for a different
> (lightweight) in-kernel api? The c10k users of aio are likely to find
> the latter model (i.e. completion ports) more efficient.

You can actually consider posix AIO using sigtimedwait() to pick up completion
notices to fit the definition of completion port if you squint a bit.
(The patented scheduler magic of NT completion ports is just a fun extra...)
- Dan
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:12 EST