Message-ID: <45C6D2C1.5010103@xman.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:46:25 -0800
From: Christopher Smith <x@xman.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
CC: bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>,
       Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-aio@kvack.org, Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: regarding generic AIO, async syscalls precedent + some benchmarks
 by lighttpd
References: <20070204225541.GA18359@outpost.ds9a.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702041548480.18633@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702041548480.18633@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 934
Lines: 20

Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Yes, that is some very interesting data IMO. I did not bench the GUASI 
> (userspace async thread library) against AIO, but those numbers show that a 
> *userspace* async syscall wrapper interface performs in the ballpark of AIO.
> This leads to some hope about the ability to effectively deploy the kernel 
> generic async AIO (being it fibril or kthreads based) as low-impact async 
> provider for basically anything.
>   

SGI's kaio patch to linux kind of went that route (using kthreads) for 
non-SCSI async IO. It wasn't a bad way to go, but at least for 
disk-based access they achieved much better results when they could go 
right to the hardware.

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