3 ms·

You're the one derailing the thread. I made a factual statement that is true. You argued it wasn't. I explained how it was true. Then you keep insisting with "b

You're the one derailing the thread. I made a factual statement that is true. You argued it wasn't. I explained how it was true. Then you keep insisting with "but [...]" that are all irrelevant to the problem that this solution addresses. Being in the kernel alone doesn't remove interrupt-driven context switching, or being scheduled out by other kernel threads. Those are all completely orthogonal concerns, which can all be fixed without needing to put more user code in the kernel.

rektide 4y ago
The single threaded example I made is exactly the counter I made to this kind of narrow-minded disregard. Yeah there are interrupts happening. But whether io has to bridge the user/kernel barrier is still the main question here, and io_uring reduces but emphatically does not free us from that, it simply defers/batches/reduces the number of sys-calls. You seem unwilling in extreme to recognize this, and I don't get why you falsify your statements again and again to resist this, with your reliance on 0.001% technical possibilities almost no user would experience to justify your essentially irrational & misleading claims. You still haven't shown any compromise. I think almost no one would agree with you. io_uring is great, but as much as you dodge around the fact, there's still a kernel/user barrier, and there are systems like kernel-wasm or DPDK that keep processing on one side or the other, and as much as you for some asinine reason or simply personal failing, you are unable to admit that obvious clear & essential advantage. > I didn't. io_uring allows to remove context switching entirely. That is a factual statement. If you use io_uring, there is more kernel work than there otherwise would be. Work must transit the user/kernel barrier. And this has a cost, which can be avoided by other schemes. Simple as that. Fact. Stop throwing smoke bombs & be real. Can you show even any recognition what-so-ever, any attempt to acknowledge a single statement I've made (as I have done yours), rather than blow up every single thing I've said? It seems not. This seems like enormously bad faith posting, not done in the spirit of finding out & discussing.

rektide 4y ago

The single threaded example I made is exactly the counter I made to this kind of narrow-minded disregard. Yeah there are interrupts happening. But whether io has to bridge the user/kernel barrier is still the main question here, and io_uring reduces but emphatically does not free us from that, it simply defers/batches/reduces the number of sys-calls. You seem unwilling in extreme to recognize this, and I don't get why you falsify your statements again and again to resist this, with your reliance on 0.001% technical possibilities almost no user would experience to justify your essentially irrational & misleading claims. You still haven't shown any compromise. I think almost no one would agree with you. io_uring is great, but as much as you dodge around the fact, there's still a kernel/user barrier, and there are systems like kernel-wasm or DPDK that keep processing on one side or the other, and as much as you for some asinine reason or simply personal failing, you are unable to admit that obvious clear & essential advantage. > I didn't. io_uring allows to remove context switching entirely. That is a factual statement. If you use io_uring, there is more kernel work than there otherwise would be. Work must transit the user/kernel barrier. And this has a cost, which can be avoided by other schemes. Simple as that. Fact. Stop throwing smoke bombs & be real. Can you show even any recognition what-so-ever, any attempt to acknowledge a single statement I've made (as I have done yours), rather than blow up every single thing I've said? It seems not. This seems like enormously bad faith posting, not done in the spirit of finding out & discussing.