On 05/29/2014 04:12 PM, John Lumby wrote:
> Thanks for looking at it!
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:19:33 +0300
>> From: hlinnakangas@vmware.com
>> To: johnlumby@hotmail.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>> CC: klaussfreire@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal and patch
>>
>> On 05/28/2014 11:52 PM, John Lumby wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The patch seems to assume that you can put the aiocb struct in shared
>> memory, initiate an asynchronous I/O request from one process, and wait
>> for its completion from another process. I'm pretty surprised if that
>> works on any platform.
>
> It works on linux. Actually this ability allows the asyncio implementation to
> reduce complexity in one respect (yes I know it looks complex enough) :
> it makes waiting for completion of an in-progress IO simpler than for
> the existing synchronous IO case,. since librt takes care of the waiting.
> specifically, no need for extra wait-for-io control blocks
> such as in bufmgr's WaitIO()
[checks]. No, it doesn't work. See attached test program.
It kinda seems to work sometimes, because of the way it's implemented in
glibc. The aiocb struct has a field for the result value and errno, and
when the I/O is finished, the worker thread fills them in. aio_error()
and aio_return() just return the values of those fields, so calling
aio_error() or aio_return() do in fact happen to work from a different
process. aio_suspend(), however, is implemented by sleeping on a
process-local mutex, which does not work from a different process.
Even if it worked on Linux today, it would be a bad idea to rely on it
from a portability point of view. No, the only sane way to make this
work is that the process that initiates an I/O request is responsible
for completing it. If another process needs to wait for an async I/O to
complete, we must use some other means to do the waiting. Like the
io_in_progress_lock that we already have, for the same purpose.
- Heikki