[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E88ECD.3040806@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:56:45 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v2] add extent status tree caching
On 7/18/13 1:53 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 01:35:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> (Should we do this all the time, instead of when the application
>>> explicitly requests it? Maybe; there could be cases with very large,
>>> fragmented files accessed by an application such as "file" is only needs
>>> to look at a small subset of the file where this could result in an
>>> unnecessary work and memory allocated. OTOH, 95%+ of the time this
>>> would probably be a win...)
>>
>> I'd say yes, we should - maybe not in all cases but if you need it for
>> AIO, try to make it "all the time" at least for that AIO?
>
> The problem is we don't know that we're doing AIO until we see the
> first io_submit(2) call. With this patch series, we'll pull the
> contents of the entire leaf tree block into extent cache, but if the
> extent tree is larger than that, if we read in the entire extent tree
> on the first AIO request, then that first request will delayed even
> more, and it's not clear that's a good thing.
Is blocking on a pre-AIO ioctl better than blocking on the
first AIO?
-Eric
--
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