Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:28:38 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> Cc: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> Subject: Re: Update: Debox sendfile modifications Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031105102201.76974B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0311051208160.3103-100000@is.park.rambler.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Igor Sysoev wrote: > As to worker kthreads I think it's better to queue aio operation as it > was made in src/sys/kern/vfs_aio.c:aio_qphysio(). One of the things that worries me about the proposal to use kernel worker threads to perform the I/O is that this can place a fairly low upper bound on effective parallelism, unless the kernel threads themselves can issue the I/O's asynchronously. In the network stack itself, we are event and queue driven without blocking--if we can maintain the apparent semantics to the application, it would be very nice to be able to handle that at the socket layer itself. I.e., not waste a thread + stack per "in-progress" operation, and instead have a worker or two that simply propel operations up and down the stack (similar to geom_up and geom_down). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031105102201.76974B-100000>