Re:Io_uring is not (only) a generic asynchronous syscall fac...
by bob1029 on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @08:50AM
(#27687831)
> In particular the disruptor wouldn't be appropriate to implement io_uring
Completely agree. It's at a higher level of abstraction and intersects only in some conceptual ways with how the OS operates.
> [...] where there is only one consumer, only one producer[1] and packet loss is not tolerated.
My agreement above still standing, I feel like this case is actually covered by the disruptor as well. It is a trivial subset of the multi-producer, single-consumer problem that it was originally built to handle. If you made some minor modification like "packet loss is tolerated", then you have a solid case.
Completely agree. It's at a higher level of abstraction and intersects only in some conceptual ways with how the OS operates.
> [...] where there is only one consumer, only one producer[1] and packet loss is not tolerated.
My agreement above still standing, I feel like this case is actually covered by the disruptor as well. It is a trivial subset of the multi-producer, single-consumer problem that it was originally built to handle. If you made some minor modification like "packet loss is tolerated", then you have a solid case.