From: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fadvise: add more flags to provide a hint for block allocation
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:53:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F564F19.50804@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1203061504230.5085@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
On 03/06/2012 06:29 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> However the file system do not have the information which part of the
> device it resides on is faster. It might be the beginning of the file
> system, but it might not be the case at all.
Think HSM and flash storage as the hot region. Remember these are
hints and not guaranteed to work in all cases.
> Moreover the flag which is stating that the file does not have to be
> allocated sequentially is not particularly helpful, I can not imagine
> people using it. Why would someone want to lower their performance ?
> Well, they might think that it will increase performance of the other
> files, but that is highly disputable and there are better solutions like
> using faster storage for the files that actually needs it.
>
> Additionally *_HOT* flag does not say anything about the allocation
> policy. It might be accessed often ,but no in sequential manner, or it
> can be written to a lot, it can be appended a lot, or it the content
> might be changed without changing its size etc... *Hot* might mean so
> many thing that this is just not useful for the file system. It would
> certainly be better to come up with something less esoteric which would
> actually address concrete user issues and help file system to deal with
> them better, like, I do not know, do not fsync/force allocation on
> rename maybe...(or whatever we are doing right now).
_HOT/_COLD is descriptive for allocation policy though fadvise() is
the wrong call as it pertains to access patterns.
Sunil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-06 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-05 12:50 [RFC] fadvise: add more flags to provide a hint for block allocation Zheng Liu
2012-03-05 19:48 ` Sunil Mushran
2012-03-06 2:35 ` Zheng Liu
2012-03-06 4:26 ` Sunil Mushran
2012-03-06 13:30 ` Zheng Liu
2012-03-06 8:27 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-06 13:56 ` Zheng Liu
2012-03-06 14:29 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-06 17:53 ` Sunil Mushran [this message]
2012-03-07 8:51 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-07 17:11 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-07 0:51 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-07 4:14 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-03-07 5:02 ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-07 12:11 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-08 4:23 ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-08 7:07 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-08 17:01 ` Martin K. Petersen
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=4F564F19.50804@oracle.com \
--to=sunil.mushran@oracle.com \
--cc=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@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.