Re: [patch 00/11] ANNOUNCE: "Syslets", generic asynchronous system call support

[Olivier Galibert]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:57:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Open issues:
> 
> > If this is going to be a generic AIO subsystem:
> > 
> > - Cancellation of pending request
> 
> How about implementing aio_cancel() as a NOP. Can anyone prove that the 
> kernel didnt actually attempt to cancel that IO? [but unfortunately 
> failed at doing so, because the platters were being written already.]
> 
> really, what's the point behind aio_cancel()?

Lemme give you a real-world scenario: Question Answering in a Dialog
System.  Your locked-in-memory index ranks documents in a several
million files corpus depending of the chances they have to have what
you're looking for.  You have a tenth of a second to read as many of
them as you can, and each seek is 5ms.  So you aio-read them,
requesting them in order of ranking up to 200 or so, and see what you
have at the 0.1s deadline.  If you're lucky, a combination of cache
(especially if you stat() the whole dir tree on a regular basis to
keep the metadata fresh in cache) and of good io reorganisation by the
scheduler will allow you to get a good number of them and do the
information extraction, scoring and clustering of answers, which is
pure CPU at that point.  You *have* to cancel the remaining i/o
because you do not want the disk saturated when the next request
comes, especially if it's 10ms later because the dialog manager found
out it needed a complementary request.

Incidentally, that's something I'm currently implementing for work,
making these aio discussions more interesting that usual :-)

  OG.
-
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/