From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Subject: Re: Why does __do_page_cache_readahead submit READ, not READA?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:55:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090729225501.GH24801@think> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090729211845.GB4148@kernel.dk>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > I naively assumed, from the "readahead" in the name, that readahead
> > would be submitting READA bios. It does not.
> >
> > I recently did some statistics on how many READ and READA requests
> > we actually see on the block device level.
> > I was suprised that READA is basically only used for file system
> > internal meta data (and not even for all file systems),
> > but _never_ for file data.
> >
> > A simple
> > dd if=bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1
> > will absolutely cause readahead of the configured amount, no problem.
> > But on the block device level, these are READ requests, where I'd
> > expected them to be READA requests, based on the name.
> >
> > This is because __do_page_cache_readahead() calls read_pages(),
> > which in turn is mapping->a_ops->readpages(), or, as fallback,
> > mapping->a_ops->readpage().
> >
> > On that level, all variants end up submitting as READ.
> >
> > This may even be intentional.
> > But if so, I'd like to understand that.
>
> I don't think it's intentional, and if memory serves, we used to use
> READA when submitting read-ahead. Not sure how best to improve the
> situation, since (as you describe), we lose the read-ahead vs normal
> read at that level. I did some experimentation some time ago for
> flagging this, see:
>
> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commitdiff;h=16cfe64e3568cda412b3cf6b7b891331946b595e
>
> which should pass down READA properly.
One of the problems in the past was that reada would fail if there
wasn't a free request when we actually wanted it to go ahead and wait.
Or something. We've switched it around a few times I think.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Subject: Re: Why does __do_page_cache_readahead submit READ, not READA?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:55:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090729225501.GH24801@think> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090729211845.GB4148@kernel.dk>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > I naively assumed, from the "readahead" in the name, that readahead
> > would be submitting READA bios. It does not.
> >
> > I recently did some statistics on how many READ and READA requests
> > we actually see on the block device level.
> > I was suprised that READA is basically only used for file system
> > internal meta data (and not even for all file systems),
> > but _never_ for file data.
> >
> > A simple
> > dd if=bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1
> > will absolutely cause readahead of the configured amount, no problem.
> > But on the block device level, these are READ requests, where I'd
> > expected them to be READA requests, based on the name.
> >
> > This is because __do_page_cache_readahead() calls read_pages(),
> > which in turn is mapping->a_ops->readpages(), or, as fallback,
> > mapping->a_ops->readpage().
> >
> > On that level, all variants end up submitting as READ.
> >
> > This may even be intentional.
> > But if so, I'd like to understand that.
>
> I don't think it's intentional, and if memory serves, we used to use
> READA when submitting read-ahead. Not sure how best to improve the
> situation, since (as you describe), we lose the read-ahead vs normal
> read at that level. I did some experimentation some time ago for
> flagging this, see:
>
> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commitdiff;h=16cfe64e3568cda412b3cf6b7b891331946b595e
>
> which should pass down READA properly.
One of the problems in the past was that reada would fail if there
wasn't a free request when we actually wanted it to go ahead and wait.
Or something. We've switched it around a few times I think.
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-29 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-29 16:14 Why does __do_page_cache_readahead submit READ, not READA? Lars Ellenberg
2009-07-29 16:14 ` Lars Ellenberg
2009-07-29 21:18 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-29 21:18 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-29 22:55 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2009-07-29 22:55 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-30 6:06 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 6:06 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-30 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-30 16:47 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-30 16:47 ` Jeff Moyer
2009-07-30 16:56 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-30 16:56 ` Chris Mason
2009-08-03 7:52 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 7:52 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 7:59 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 7:59 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 8:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 8:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 9:25 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 9:25 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 9:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 9:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 9:37 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 9:37 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 9:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 9:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-03 14:26 ` [dm-devel] " James Bottomley
2009-08-03 14:26 ` James Bottomley
2009-08-03 21:03 ` Jens Axboe
2009-08-03 21:03 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090729225501.GH24801@think \
--to=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=lars.ellenberg@linbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.