Re: Random file I/O regressions in 2.6

[Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 14:59, Andrew Morton wrote:
 
> 
> > But how could read-ahead disabled end up in 16K request converted to
> > several sequential synchronous 4K requests ? 
> 
> Readahead got itself turned off because of pagecache hits and didn't turn
> itself on again.

Andrew,
	In the slow read path, every contiguous access increases 
	ra->size by 1 and  non-contiguous access decreases the
	ra->size by 1. Now in the case of 16k random request,
        we have 1 non-contiguous request and 3 contiguous request.
	As a result the ra->size should have been incremented by
	-1+1+1+1=2 . So at the end of 16 4K request we should have had
        ra->size at 32. At this point onwards the readahead should get
	turned on. Right?

	I strongly feel the readahead got closed because of misses and
	not because of hits. Moreover if we are closing readahead window
	 because of hits, then that implies we have pretty good caching
	 going on.Which implies i/o should rarely hit the disk and hence
	 performance should not degrade.

Agree?
RP
	
> 
>