[TUHS] Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix

[TUHS] Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Peter Jeremy <peter at rulingia.com>

    > Why were the original read(2) and write(2) system calls written to
    > offer synchronous I/O only?

A very interesting question (to me, particularly, see below). I don't think
any of the Unix papers answer this question?

    > It's relatively easy to create synchronous I/O functions given
    > asynchronous I/O primitives but it's impossible to do the opposite.

Indeed, and I've seen operating systems (e.g. a real-time PDP-11 OS I worked
with a lot called MOS) that did that.

I actually did add asynchronous I/O to V6 UNIX, for use with very early
Internet networking software being done at MIT (in a user process). Actually,
it wasn't just asynchronous, it was _raw_ asynchronous I/O! (The networking
device was DMA, and the s/w did DMA directly into the user process' memory.)
The code also allowed more than one outstanding I/O request, too. (So the
input could be re-enabled on the device ASAP, without having to wake up a
process, have it run, do a new read call, etc.)

We didn't redo the whole Unix I/O system, to support/use asyn I/O throughout,
though; I just kind of warted it onto the side. (IIRC, it notified the user
process via a signal that the I/O had completed; the user software then had
to do an sgtty() call to get the transfer status, size, etc.)


Anyway, back to the original topic: I don't want to speculate (although I
could :-); perhaps someone who was around 'back then' can offer some insight?
If not, time for speculation! :-)

	Noel

[TUHS] Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix

[Larry McVoy]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 08:39:33AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Anyway, back to the original topic: I don't want to speculate (although I
> could :-); perhaps someone who was around 'back then' can offer some insight?
> If not, time for speculation! :-)

I don't have the answer but I noodled around with one quite a while ago:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/p/bitmover/lm/papers/splice.pdf

[TUHS] Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix

[Larry McVoy]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 07:32:22AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 08:39:33AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > Anyway, back to the original topic: I don't want to speculate (although I
> > could :-); perhaps someone who was around 'back then' can offer some insight?
> > If not, time for speculation! :-)
> 
> I don't have the answer but I noodled around with one quite a while ago:
> 
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/p/bitmover/lm/papers/splice.pdf

Whoops, wrng url, try this:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/bitmover/lm/papers/splice.pdf

Thanks to Charles Anthony for pointing that out to me.

[TUHS] Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix

[Peter Jeremy]

Why were the original read(2) and write(2) system calls written to offer
synchronous I/O only?  It's relatively easy to create synchronous I/O
functions given asynchronous I/O primitives but it's impossible to do the
opposite.

Multics (at least) supported asynchronous I/O so the concept wasn't novel.
And any multi-tasking kernel has to support asynchronous I/O internally so
suitable code exists in the kernel.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20150920/ac6337df/attachment.sig>