Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 4c7b9885 authored by Gregory Nutt's avatar Gregory Nutt
Browse files

Update some comments

parent a0f3267d
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ static void aio_read_worker(FAR void *arg)
* has been initiated or queued to the file or device (even when the data
* cannot be delivered immediately).
*
* If prioritized I/O is supported for this file, then the asynchronous
* operation will be submitted at a priority equal to a base scheduling
* priority minus aiocbp->aio_reqprio. If Thread Execution Scheduling is
* not supported, then the base scheduling priority is that of the calling
* thread (the latter is implemented at present).
*
* The aiocbp value may be used as an argument to aio_error() and
* aio_return() in order to determine the error status and return status,
* respectively, of the asynchronous operation while it is proceeding. If
......@@ -233,32 +239,6 @@ static void aio_read_worker(FAR void *arg)
* description associated with aiocbp->aio_fildes.
*
* POSIX Compliance:
* - The POSIX specification of asynchronous I/O implies that a thread is
* created for each I/O operation. The standard requires that if
* prioritized I/O is supported for this file, then the asynchronous
* operation will be submitted at a priority equal to a base scheduling
* priority minus aiocbp->aio_reqprio. If Thread Execution Scheduling is
* not supported, then the base scheduling priority is that of the calling
* thread.
*
* My initial gut feeling is the creating a new thread on each asynchronous
* I/O operation would not be a good use of resources in a deeply embedded
* system. So I decided to execute all asynchronous I/O on a low-priority
* or user-space worker thread. There are two negative consequences of this
* decision that need to be revisited:
*
* 1) The worker thread runs at a fixed priority making it impossible to
* meet the POSIX requirement for asynchronous I/O. That standard
* specifically requires varying priority.
* 2) On the worker thread, each I/O will still be performed synchronously,
* one at a time. This is not a violation of the POSIX requirement,
* but one would think there could be opportunities for concurrent I/O.
*
* In reality, in a small embedded system, there will probably only be one
* real file system and, in this case, the I/O will be performed sequentially
* anyway. Most simple embedded hardware will not support any concurrent
* accesses.
*
* - Most errors required in the standard are not detected at this point.
* There are no pre-queuing checks for the validity of the operation.
*
......
......@@ -203,6 +203,12 @@ static void aio_write_worker(FAR void *arg)
* has been initiated or queued to the file or device (even when the data
* cannot be delivered immediately).
*
* If prioritized I/O is supported for this file, then the asynchronous
* operation will be submitted at a priority equal to a base scheduling
* priority minus aiocbp->aio_reqprio. If Thread Execution Scheduling is
* not supported, then the base scheduling priority is that of the calling
* thread (the latter is implemented at present).
*
* The aiocbp value may be used as an argument to aio_error() and
* aio_return() in order to determine the error status and return status,
* respectively, of the asynchronous operation while it is proceeding.
......@@ -280,32 +286,6 @@ static void aio_write_worker(FAR void *arg)
* with aiocbp->aio_fildes.
*
* POSIX Compliance:
* - The POSIX specification of asynchronous I/O implies that a thread is
* created for each I/O operation. The standard requires that if
* prioritized I/O is supported for this file, then the asynchronous
* operation will be submitted at a priority equal to a base scheduling
* priority minus aiocbp->aio_reqprio. If Thread Execution Scheduling is
* not supported, then the base scheduling priority is that of the calling
* thread.
*
* My initial gut feeling is the creating a new thread on each asynchronous
* I/O operation would not be a good use of resources in a deeply embedded
* system. So I decided to execute all asynchronous I/O on a low-priority
* or user-space worker thread. There are two negative consequences of this
* decision that need to be revisited:
*
* 1) The worker thread runs at a fixed priority making it impossible to
* meet the POSIX requirement for asynchronous I/O. That standard
* specifically requires varying priority.
* 2) On the worker thread, each I/O will still be performed synchronously,
* one at a time. This is not a violation of the POSIX requirement,
* but one would think there could be opportunities for concurrent I/O.
*
* In reality, in a small embedded system, there will probably only be one
* real file system and, in this case, the I/O will be performed sequentially
* anyway. Most simple embedded hardware will not support any concurrent
* accesses.
*
* - Most errors required in the standard are not detected at this point.
* There are no pre-queuing checks for the validity of the operation.
*
......
......@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ struct aiocb
off_t aio_offset; /* File offset */
size_t aio_nbytes; /* Length of transfer */
int aio_fildes; /* File descriptor */
int8_t aio_reqprio; /* Request priority offset */
int8_t aio_reqprio; /* Request priority offset (not used) */
uint8_t aio_lio_opcode; /* Operation to be performed */
/* Non-standard, implementation-dependent data. For portability reasons,
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment