Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:04:27 -0400 From: "Christopher M. Sedore" <cmsedore@maxwell.syr.edu> To: "Igor Sysoev" <is@rambler-co.ru>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: RE: aio_connect ? Message-ID: <32A8B2CB12BFC84D8D11D872C787AA9A058EE90F@EXCHANGE.forest.maxwell.syr.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=20 > From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org=20 > [mailto:owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Igor Sysoev > Subject: Re: aio_connect ? >=20 [...] > While the developing my server nginx, I found the POSIX aio_*=20 > operations > uncomfortable. I do not mean a different programming style, I mean > the aio_read() and aio_write() drawbacks - they have no scatter-gather > capabilities (aio_readv/aio_writev) and they require too many=20 > syscalls. > E.g, the reading requires > *) 3 syscalls for ready data: aio_read(), aio_error(), aio_return() > *) 5 syscalls for non-ready data: aio_read(), aio_error(), > waiting for notification, then aio_error(), aio_return(), > or if timeout occuired - aio_cancel(), aio_error(). >=20 This is why I added aio_waitcomplete(). It reduces both cases to two syscalls. -Chris=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32A8B2CB12BFC84D8D11D872C787AA9A058EE90F>