Ben, First, let me apologize for neglecting to copy you and linux-aio on the applicable patches. I've been carrying along this patchset, assuming I had gotten the proper cc's correct a while back, but I somehow missed the aio pieces. On 08/21/2013 08:02 AM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > Hello Dave, > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can >> issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and >> file system methods which specify io memory with pages instead of userspace >> addresses. > > First off, have you tested that this series actually works when merged with > the pending AIO changes from Kent? There a git tree with those pending > changes at git://git.kvack.org/~bcrl/aio-next.git , and they're in > linux-next. I've lightly tested the patchset against the linux-next tree, running a fio job on loop-mounted filesystems of different fs types. > 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 > (ie warn when read_iter/write_iter methods perform blockin operations, > similar to the warnings when scheduling in atomic mode). This means more > changes for some filesystem code involved, something that people have been > avoiding for years, but which really needs to be done. I'm not really sure how the read_iter and write_iter operations are more likely to block than the current aio_read and aio_write operations. Am I missing something? Thanks, Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
