From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct  6 23:29:26 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 32CCC16A4B3; Mon,  6 Oct 2003 23:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F297343FCB; Mon,  6 Oct 2003 23:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h976TH2B032325;
	Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:29:18 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:53:28 PDT."
             <200310061753.28562.sam@errno.com> 
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <32324.1065508157@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Alignment of disk-I/O from userland. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:29:26 -0000

In message <200310061753.28562.sam@errno.com>, Sam Leffler writes:
>On Monday 06 October 2003 04:11 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <20031006163218.L55190@pooker.samsco.home>, Scott Long writes:
>	...stuff deleted...
>> >As for returning an error code for a buffer that we (arbitrarily) believe
>> >to be too big to align, [...]
>>
>> I have never advocated returning an error based on "alignment and size",
>> only based on alignment alone.
>
>Imposing this restriction is a major semantic change that I consider a very 
>bad idea.  You are basically imposing the semantics of O_DIRECT on all i/o 
>operations going to a device.  I think it is important to give best effort to 
>support unaligned operations `by default.  I can imagine restricting this to 
>some upper size bound but existing applications, regardless of how well you 
>consider them to be written, must continue to work.

Now now, you are missing two of the finer points:

1:  Not "on all i/o operations going to a device", but rather "on i/o
    operations which take the physread/write fast-path to avoid a copyin/out
    overhead."  (disks and tapes mostly).  Ttys, /dev/null and all the
    "typical" devices are unaffected.

2:  Right now we _do_ impose this restriction, but our error-reporting
    is wildly inaccurate.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.