mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@elf.ucw.cz>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:30:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020801103011.GB159@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020731004451.GI1181@dualathlon.random>

Hi!

> > > Can you point me out to a patch with the new cancellation API that you
> > > agree with for merging in 2.5 so I can synchronize? I'm reading your
> > > very latest patch loaded on some site in June. that will be really
> > > helpful, many thanks!
> > 
> > Here is what I've got for the aio core that has the cancellation 
> > change to return the completion event.  The other slight change that 
> > I meant to get in before going into the mainstream is to have the 
> > timeout io_getevents takes be an absolute timeout, which helps for 
> > applications that have specific deadlines they are attempting to 
> > schedule to (think video playback).  This drop is untested, but I'd 
> 
> are you sure this is a good idea? this adds an implicit gettimeofday
> (thought no entry/exit kernel) to every getevents syscall with a
> "when" specificed, so the user may now need to do gettimeofday both
> externally and internally to use the previous "timeout" feature (given
> the kernel can delay only of a timeout, so the kernel has to calculate
> the timeout internally now). I guess I prefer the previous version that
> had the "timeout" information instead of "when". Also many soft
> multimedia only expect the timeout to take "timeout", and if a frame
> skips they'll just slowdown the frame rate, so they won't be real time
> but you'll see something on the screen/audio. Otherwise they can keep
> timing out endlessy if they cannot keep up with the stream, and they
> will show nothing rather than showing a low frame rate.
> 
> So I'm not very excited about this change, I would prefer the previous
> version. Also consider with the vsyscall doing the gettimeofday
> calculation in userspace based on "when" rather than in-kernel isn't
> going to be more expensive than your new API even of applications that
> really want the "when" behaviour instead of the "timeout". While the
> applications that wants the "timeout" this way we'll be forced to a
> vgettimeofday in userspace and one in kernel which is a pure overhead
> for them.

I believe Linus actually explained why "when" looks way better to him
than "timeout". [It does not skew, for example.]
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-08-01 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-07-30  5:41 async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30  8:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-30 13:40   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 13:52     ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 16:43   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 16:59     ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 19:10       ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 18:09         ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 18:15           ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 18:31             ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 20:57               ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 20:47           ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 21:26       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 10:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-07-30 12:49 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 13:29   ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-07-30 21:41   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 21:54     ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31  0:44       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31 14:46         ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31 16:31         ` Charles 'Buck' Krasic
2002-08-01 10:30         ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2002-08-01 14:47           ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-01 15:00             ` Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 16:09               ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 17:30                 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-01 16:30                   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 16:41                     ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for2.5.29) Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 18:01                     ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-15 23:54                       ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16  1:42                         ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16  1:57                           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16  2:00                             ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16  2:08                               ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16  2:16                                 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16  2:40                                   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16  3:43                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16  3:50                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16  4:47                                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-17  3:46                                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17  4:00                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17  4:15                                       ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17  4:46                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2001-11-02  5:12                                           ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-17  5:04                                           ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17  5:24                                             ` lots of mem on 32 bit machines (was: aio-core why not using SuS?) Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17  5:12                                           ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 17:02                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 21:27                                               ` 32 bit arch with lots of RAM Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:30                                                 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:36                                                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:15                                               ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:12                                             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-20  0:35                                           ` Ingo Molnar
2002-08-17  4:36                                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-16  2:32                                 ` Rik van Riel
2002-08-16  2:32                               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16  9:39                           ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 10:03                             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 11:23                               ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 11:28                                 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 13:49                                   ` Dan Kegel
2002-09-02 18:40                                 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-03 12:04                                   ` aio-core in 2.5 - io_queue_wait and io_getevents Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-09-05  5:21                                   ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 13:43                             ` Dan Kegel
2002-08-16 14:21                               ` Jamie Lokier
2002-08-16 14:42                                 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 15:40                               ` John Gardiner Myers
2002-08-23 16:11                                 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re:async-io " Dan Kegel
2002-08-16  1:53                         ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io " Dan Kegel
2002-08-01 19:18                     ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-01 19:25                       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 19:31                         ` Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-02  8:24                     ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-02 11:59                       ` Alan Cox
2002-08-02 15:56                         ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-31  1:20     ` async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Rik van Riel
2002-07-31  1:32       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31  8:25         ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-31 13:19           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 13:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 16:49   ` Andrea Arcangeli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020801103011.GB159@elf.ucw.cz \
    --to=pavel@elf.ucw.cz \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®