Re: [PATCH 4 of 4] Introduce aio system call submission and completion system calls

[Andi Kleen]

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 18:15, Zach Brown wrote:
> 
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Do you have any numbers how this compares cycle wise to just doing
> > clone+syscall+exit in user space?
> 
> Not yet, no.  Release early, release often, and all that.  I'll throw  
> something together.

So what was the motivation for doing this then?  It's only point 
is to have smaller startup costs for AIO than clone+fork without
fixing the VFS code to be a state machine, right? 

I'm personally unclear if it's really less work to teach a lot of 
code in the kernel about a new thread abstraction than changing VFS.

Your patches don't look that complicated yet but you openly
admitted you waved away many of the more tricky issues (like 
signals etc.) and I bet there are yet-unknown side effects
of this too that will need more changes.

I would expect a VFS solution to be the fastest of any at least.

I'm not sure the fibrils thing will be that much faster than
a possibly somewhat fast pathed for this case clone+syscall+exit.

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