Proposal for adding O_DIRECT support into JDK 9
yingqi.lu at intel.com
Tue Sep 27 16:57:06 UTC 2016
Thank you for the explanation, we will modify the code accordingly and send it out soon for review.
From: Alan Bateman [mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:45 AM
To: Lu, Yingqi <yingqi.lu at intel.com>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
Cc: nio-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Proposal for adding O_DIRECT support into JDK 9
On 26/09/2016 19:50, Lu, Yingqi wrote:
> Alan, you mean readv0/write0 or read0/write0? I just want to make sure
Apologies, I meant each of the native methods where the decision to use direct I/O or not would be a lot more maintainable in Java. You'll see that there are already code paths for direct vs. heap buffers.
> Anyone else has other opinions on where is the best home for O_DIRECT flag? The flags under jdk.unsupported will eventually be removed in the future JDK release?
> If we agree ExtendedOpenOpen is the best home for O_DIRECT, we can modify that for sure.
I think ExtendedOpenOption is the right place. It's still TDB as to whether to put these extensions but that should be transparent to anyone using this when on the class path.
More information about the core-libs-dev