From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:24:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100224052409.GI16175@discord.disaster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100224044356.GA2007@localhost>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43:56PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:24:14PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:29:34PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
> > > might find the results are different if the server has to read the
> > > file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
> > > to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
> > > side for the readahead to hide....
> >
> > FWIW, if you mount the client with "-o rsize=32k" or the server only
> > supports rsize <= 32k then this will probably hurt throughput a lot
> > because then readahead will be capped at 64k instead of 480k....
>
> I should have mentioned that in changelog.. Hope the updated one
> helps.
Sorry, my fault for not reading the code correctly.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust
<Trond.Myklebust-HgOvQuBEEgTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Linux Memory Management List
<linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:24:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100224052409.GI16175@discord.disaster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100224044356.GA2007@localhost>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43:56PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:24:14PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:29:34PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
> > > might find the results are different if the server has to read the
> > > file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
> > > to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
> > > side for the readahead to hide....
> >
> > FWIW, if you mount the client with "-o rsize=32k" or the server only
> > supports rsize <= 32k then this will probably hurt throughput a lot
> > because then readahead will be capped at 64k instead of 480k....
>
> I should have mentioned that in changelog.. Hope the updated one
> helps.
Sorry, my fault for not reading the code correctly.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:24:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100224052409.GI16175@discord.disaster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100224044356.GA2007@localhost>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43:56PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:24:14PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:29:34PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
> > > might find the results are different if the server has to read the
> > > file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
> > > to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
> > > side for the readahead to hide....
> >
> > FWIW, if you mount the client with "-o rsize=32k" or the server only
> > supports rsize <= 32k then this will probably hurt throughput a lot
> > because then readahead will be capped at 64k instead of 480k....
>
> I should have mentioned that in changelog.. Hope the updated one
> helps.
Sorry, my fault for not reading the code correctly.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-24 5:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-24 2:41 [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 3:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 3:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 6:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 6:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 7:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 7:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-26 7:49 ` [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize " Wu Fengguang
2010-02-26 7:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 3:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 3:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 14:19 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 14:19 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 17:33 ` John Stoffel
2010-03-02 17:33 ` John Stoffel
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-03 3:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-03 3:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-04-14 21:22 ` Dean Hildebrand
2010-04-14 21:22 ` Dean Hildebrand
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-03 1:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-03 1:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 11:18 ` [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize " Akshat Aranya
2010-02-24 11:18 ` Akshat Aranya
2010-02-24 11:18 ` Akshat Aranya
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
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=20100224052409.GI16175@discord.disaster \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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.