On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:25:15PM -0800, Nate Diller wrote:
the right thing to do from a design perspective. Hopefully it enables
a new architecture that can reduce context switches in I/O completion,
and reduce overhead. That's the real motive ;)
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:25:15PM -0800, Nate Diller wrote:
> the right thing to do from a design perspective. Hopefully it enables
> a new architecture that can reduce context switches in I/O completion,
> and reduce overhead. That's the real motive ;)
And it's a broken motive. Context switch
On Monday 15 January 2007 8:25 pm, Nate Diller wrote:
> I don't think we should be waiting on sync I/O
> at the *top* of the call stack, like with wait_on_sync_kiocb(), I'd
> say the best place to wait is at the *bottom*, down in the I/O
> scheduler.
Erm ... *what* I/O scheduler? These I/O requ
On 1/15/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 05:54:50PM -0800, Nate Diller wrote:
> This series is an attempt to generalize the async I/O paths to be
> implementation agnostic. It completely eliminates knowledge of
> the kiocb structure in the generic code and
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 05:54:50PM -0800, Nate Diller wrote:
> This series is an attempt to generalize the async I/O paths to be
> implementation agnostic. It completely eliminates knowledge of
> the kiocb structure in the generic code and makes it private within the
> current aio code. Things ge
This series is an attempt to generalize the async I/O paths to be
implementation agnostic. It completely eliminates knowledge of
the kiocb structure in the generic code and makes it private within the
current aio code. Things get noticeably cleaner without that layering
violation.
The new interf
