From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
pierre.tardy@intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com,
david.a.cohen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] readahead: fix sequential read cache miss detection
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:23:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131017132348.a89c6cb5222eda83fb0ce079@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1382033352-21225-1-git-send-email-damien.ramonda@intel.com>
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:09:12 +0200 Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@intel.com> wrote:
> The kernel's readahead algorithm sometimes interprets random read
> accesses as sequential and triggers unnecessary data prefecthing
> from storage device (impacting random read average latency).
>
> In order to identify sequential cache read misses, the readahead
> algorithm intends to check whether offset - previous offset == 1
> (trivial sequential reads) or offset - previous offset == 0
> (sequential reads not aligned on page boundary):
>
> if (offset - (ra->prev_pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) <= 1UL)
>
> The current offset is stored in the "offset" variable of type
> "pgoff_t" (unsigned long), while previous offset is stored in
> "ra->prev_pos" of type "loff_t" (long long). Therefore,
> operands of the if statement are implicitly converted to type
> long long. Consequently, when previous offset > current offset
> (which happens on random pattern), the if condition is true
> and access is wrongly interpeted as sequential. An unnecessary
> data prefetching is triggered, impacting the average
> random read latency.
>
> Storing the previous offset value in a "pgoff_t" variable
> (unsigned long) fixes the sequential read detection logic.
Do you have any performance testing results which would permit
people to understand the significance of this change?
Thanks.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-17 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-17 18:09 [PATCH] readahead: fix sequential read cache miss detection Damien Ramonda
2013-10-17 20:23 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20131017132348.a89c6cb5222eda83fb0ce079@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=damien.ramonda@intel.com \
--cc=david.a.cohen@intel.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pierre.tardy@intel.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).