[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090619115500.GE17784@skywalker>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:25:01 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT and delayed allocation question
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:53:17PM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
> This might be a question with an obvious answer, but I'd like
> verification one way or the other.
>
> Does the use of O_DIRECT essentially disable delayed allocation for a
> given file?
>
> My simple tests show a larger degree of block fragmentation for files
> written using O_DIRECT than without, and on its face, this makes sense
> to me. This fragmentation can be removed by using fallocate() on a
> file before extending it with writes.
>
> (Strictly speaking, I guess the use of O_DIRECT wouldn't "disable"
> delayed allocation, since the blocks are allocated at the "normal"
> time -- when going to disk. But effectively there would be a lot less
> block grouping available to build large extents if each write goes to
> disk immediately, instead of going through the page cache.)
>
exactly. So it is possible that we are getting smaller number of block
request in O_DIRECT case. But you should still see better block
allocation because of mballoc. mballoc normalize the input block request
count based on the file size. w.r.t fallocate I have noticed one problem with O_DIRECT
which is explained in the url below. So there may be performance impact on using
O_DIRECT with fallocate.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/13762
-aneesh
--
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