From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
To: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>
Cc: 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, 6 Mar 2012 10:35:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120306023505.GA7728@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F55189B.4080507@oracle.com>
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:48:43AM -0800, Sunil Mushran wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 04:50 AM, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >Hi list,
> >
> >Block allocation is a key component of file system. Every file systems try to
> >improve the performance with optimizing the block allocation of a file. But no
> >matter what file system does, it just guesses what the user expects. Thus, it
> >is not very accurate. fadvise(2) provides a method to let the user to give a
> >hint to file system. However, until now, only few flags are provided. So we
> >can provide more flags to tell file system how to allocate the blocks for a
> >file.
> >
> >For example:
> >we can add these flags into fadvise(2):
> >FADV_ALLOC_READ_SEQ
> >FADV_ALLOC_READ_RANDOM
> >FADV_ALLOC_WRITE_ONCE
> >FADV_ALLOC_WRITE_APPEND
> >
> >FADV_ALLOC_READ_* are not similar with FADV_SEQUENTIAL and FADV_RANDOM.
> >FADV_ALLOC_READ_SEQ tells file system that this file need to allocate some
> >sequential blocks, and FADV_ALLOC_READ_RADOM tells file system that this file
> >can endure the fragmentation.
Hi Sunil,
Thank you for your feedback.
>
>
> File systems typically allocate the best layout they can for a file
> at the time of write. Does _RANDOM mean do not do that. Find single
> bits scattered around the disk. If so, why will people use it. I
> mean, random IOs are slow. What you are proposing it is a further
> slowdown.
> Hardly a feature that will be attractive to users.
No, _RANDOM means that file system doesn't need to try its best to find
a proper position to allocate some blocks for this file. Furthermore,
currently random IOs seem that they are not obviously slower than
sequential IOs in Flash/SSD device. For example, when users know a file
that is accessed infrequently, they can put this file in a corner, such
as in some discontinuously blocks. Then sequential blocks are reserved
for the file that needs to be accessed frequently and users can obtain
the better performance.
>
>
> >FADV_ALLOC_WRITE_ONCE indicates that this file just is written once. So file
> >system can allocate some sequential blocks for it to improve the read
> >performance. FADV_ALLOC_WRITE_APPEND flag is set to point out that data will be
> >appended to the end of this file, and file system can reserve some blocks for it
> >to guarantee the sequence as much as possible.
>
>
> Define ONCE. Is it one write(2)? I guess not. You probably mean
> that once the file descriptor is closed, it will not be written
> to. But we have no way of knowing how many writes there will be.
> So it will be treated the same as APPEND. And file systems already
> provide allocation reservation and/or delayed allocation to handle
> APPEND write loads. So this flag does not offer much to the user
> or the fs.
Sorry, I don't express clearly. _ONCE means that the size of a file
doesn't be chagned after it has been created. Certainly, you are right.
We can use fallocate(2) to obtain the same result. ;-)
Regards,
Zheng
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-06 2:35 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 [this message]
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
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=20120306023505.GA7728@gmail.com \
--to=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sunil.mushran@oracle.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).