From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
To: Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fs-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:14:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41534AC7.70409@austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4152F46D.1060200@austin.ibm.com>
> The key design point of the new design is to make the readahead code
> aware of the size of the I/O request. This change eliminates the need
> for treating large random I/O as sequential and all of the averaging
> code that exists just to support this. In addition to this change, the
> new design ramps up quicker, and shuts off faster. This, combined with
> the request size awareness eliminates the so called "slow read path"
> that we try so hard to avoid in the current code. For complete details
> on the design of the new readahead logic, please refer to
> http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf/readahead/read-ahead-design.pdf
I do love the design. Certainly an improvement over what we currently
have in all ways I can think of.
>
>
> There are a few exception cases which still concern me.
> 1. pages already in cache
> 2. I/O queue congestion.
> 3. page stealing
Correct me if I am wrong on this. But if there was simultaneous
multithreaded reading on a single file would it look non sequential and
not trigger readahead? For instance if on a 4 processor system 4
threads were each reading 1/4 of the single file sequentially. Would
this be exception case number 4?
I don't know if this is a common scenario, just a plausible one. I also
don't know a good way to deal with it. Current code is just as
susceptible to it in any case. Nothing to hold up putting this in, just
curious if somebody knows how we might deal with it properly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-23 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-23 16:06 [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead Steven Pratt
2004-09-23 22:14 ` Joel Schopp [this message]
2004-09-24 0:21 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-24 2:42 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-24 15:40 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 16:16 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-24 16:48 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-24 22:43 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-27 15:39 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 19:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-28 10:13 ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-24 22:55 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 20:29 ` Ray Bryant
2004-09-27 21:04 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-25 0:45 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-25 1:01 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-25 6:07 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-27 15:30 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 18:42 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-27 20:07 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-29 18:46 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-29 22:33 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-29 23:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2004-09-30 2:26 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-30 5:29 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-30 20:20 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-09-30 1:12 ` Ram Pai
2004-10-01 21:02 ` Steven Pratt
2004-10-05 17:52 ` Ram Pai
[not found] <372479081@toto.iv>
2004-09-24 5:00 ` Peter Chubb
2004-09-24 22:57 ` Steven Pratt
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=41534AC7.70409@austin.ibm.com \
--to=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-fs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slpratt@austin.ibm.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