From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:15:49 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121216041549.GK9806@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121216033549.GA30446@dcvr.yhbt.net>
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 03:35:49AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:25:49AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:54:48 +0000
> > > > Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Applications streaming large files may want to reduce disk spinups and
> > > > > I/O latency by performing large amounts of readahead up front
> This could also be a use case for an audio/video player.
Sure, but this can all be handled by a userspace application. If you
want to avoid/batch IO to enable longer spindown times, then you
have to load the file into RAM somewhere, and you don't need special
kernel support for that.
> So no, there's no difference that matters between the approaches.
> But I think doing this in the kernel is easier for userspace users.
The kernel provides mechanisms for applications to use. You have not
mentioned anything new that requires a new kernel mechanism to
acheive - you just need to have the knowledge to put the pieces
together properly. People have been solving this same problem for
the last 20 years without needing to tweak fadvise(). Or even having
an fadvise() syscall...
Nothing about low latency IO or streaming IO is simple or easy, and
changing how readahead works doesn't change that fact. All it does
is change the behaviour of every other application that uses
fadvise() to minimise IO latency....
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:[~2012-12-16 4:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-15 0:54 [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue Eric Wong
2012-12-15 22:34 ` Alan Cox
2012-12-16 0:25 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:03 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:35 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 4:15 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-12-16 5:23 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 21:31 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 8:48 ` Zheng Liu
2012-12-16 2:45 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:04 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:09 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:59 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 4:26 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 5:17 ` Eric Wong
2013-02-22 16:45 ` Phillip Susi
2013-02-22 21:13 ` Eric Wong
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=20121216041549.GK9806@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \
/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).