[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070306145009.GB3661@duck.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:50:09 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, nscott@...nex.com,
"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, suparna@...ibm.com, alex@...sterfs.com,
suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
On Tue 06-03-07 06:36:09, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > fallocate with the whence argument and flags is already quite complicated,
> > I'd rather have another call for placement decisions, that would
> > be called on an fd to do placement decissions for any further allocations
> > (prealloc, write, etc)
>
> Yes, posix_fallocate shouldn't be made more complicated. But I don't
> understand why requesting linear layout of the blocks should be an
> option. It's always an advantage if the blocks requested this way are
> linear on disk. So, the kernel should always do its best to make this
> happen, without needing an additional option.
Actually, it's not that simple. You want linear layout of blocks you are
going to read. That is not necessary a linear layout of blocks in a single
file - trace sometime a start of some complicated app like KDE. You find
it's seeking like a hell because it needs a few blocks from a ton of
distinct files (shared libs, config files, etc). As these files are mostly
read only, it's advantageous to interleave them on disk or at least keep
them close.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists