|| ||bert hubert <bert.hubert-AT-netherlabs.nl>|
|| ||Zach Brown <zach.brown-AT-oracle.com>|
|| ||regarding generic AIO, async syscalls precedent + some benchmarks by lighttpd|
|| ||Sun, 4 Feb 2007 23:55:41 +0100|
|| ||Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl-AT-kvack.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna-AT-in.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
From two comments posted to my "blog"
Excerpted from the diary of Dragonfly BSD,
Remove the asynchronous syscall interface. It was an idea before its time.
However, keep the formalization of the syscall arguments structures.
The original async syscall interface was committed in
Comment by Jan Kneschke, lighttpd developer, noting the lack of and need for
Reading this article feels like reading the code I wrote in the last days
for lighttpd. Even if the network-io was async since the start
(non-blocking), the file-io wasn't. Worst of all was the stat() syscall
which doesn't have a async interface even in POSIX AIO. So it had to be
implemented with threads on our own. At http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/
you can see the impact of async vs. blocking syscalls.
http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software
http://netherlabs.nl Open and Closed source services
to post comments)