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 17:53 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 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).