missed this thread, I think I need to make it clear that linux native AIO in the stage of very beta after our Weijin's work, and we are sure that it is not in good performance, and we don't use it anywhere. I believe we just do it in suggest of Leif or someone else so we can compare what is our direct io solution.
I am sure linux native aio is fine to be killed. just FYI. On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 11:50 +0000, Chris McFarlen wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2023, at 11:38, Chris McFarlen ch...@mcfarlen.us wrote: > > > > > > I would like to remove this disk IO mode from ATS. If nobody is > > > using it, then I'd like to delete it for the 10.x release. If > > > that isn't possible, I think it should be deprecated in favor of > > > io_uring and removed in a future version. > > > > > > Is this the Linux native AIO? You’re not suggesting removing ATS > > own AIO right ? > > Correct, AIO_MODE_NATIVE is the linux only mode that uses libaio, > which is superseded by io_uring. AIO_MODE_THREAD is ATS' own > implementation that uses a thread pool of AIO threads. > AIO_MODE_IOURING is the new one that uses io_uring. My proposal is > to remove AIO_MODE_NATIVE(if unused) and make using io_uring or ATS > thread IO a startup decision based on config and kernel probing > rather than compile time. > > I think this will allow an easier, more palatable transition to > io_uring. If there are stability problems then it can be switched > off with config and a restart rather than a code rollback. io_uring > support is still very kernel-version dependent so stability and > feature availability will vary based on what version is deployed. > This should also (hopefully) allow us to test io_uring in CI if > available without separate build pipelines. > > > > > > — Leif > > > > > Is anyone using this IO mode currently? If so, are there any > > > arguments against deprecation in favor of io_uring for linux? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris -- -Miles Zhao, aka Yongming 029 128 4335
