> James Bottomley wrote:
> >>>>So, James, what is your opinion on the above? Or the overall SCSI target
> >>>>project simplicity doesn't matter much for you and you think it's fine
> >>>>to duplicate Linux page cache in the user space to keep the in-kernel
> >>>>part of the project as small as possible?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The answers were pretty much contained here
> >>>
> >>>http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=120164008302435
> >>>
> >>>and here:
> >>>
> >>>http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=120171067107293
> >>>
> >>>Weren't they?
> >>
> >>No, sorry, it doesn't look so for me. They are about performance, but
> >>I'm asking about the overall project's architecture, namely about one
> >>part of it: simplicity. Particularly, what do you think about
> >>duplicating Linux page cache in the user space to have zero-copy cached
> >>I/O? Or can you suggest another architectural solution for that problem
> >>in the STGT's approach?
> >
> >
> > Isn't that an advantage of a user space solution? It simply uses the
> > backing store of whatever device supplies the data. That means it takes
> > advantage of the existing mechanisms for caching.
>
> No, please reread this thread, especially this message:
>
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120169189504361&w=2. This is one of
> the advantages of the kernel space implementation. The user space
> implementation has to have data copied between the cache and user space
> buffer, but the kernel space one can use pages in the cache directly,
> without extra copy.