[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1158166a0704240415i4cb2e29ep1a556d3aa379476c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:15:17 +0200
From: "Denis Vlasenko" <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>,
"Eric Hopper" <hopper@...ifarious.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > One of the big problems of using a filesystem as a DB is the system
> > call overheads. If you use huge numbers of tiny files, then each
> > attempt read an atom of information from the DB takes three system
> > calls --- an open(), read(), and close(), with all of the overheads in
> > terms of dentry and inode cache.
> >
>
> Now, to be fair, there are probably a number of cases where
> open/lseek/readv/close and open/lseek/writev/close would be worth doing
> as a single system call. The big problem as far as I can see involves
> EINTR handling; such a system call has serious restartability implications.
>
> Of course, there are Ingo's syslets...
I definitely would like open/readv/close syscall a lot.
Actually, a set of four syscalls
open/readv/close
open/pread/close
open/writev/close
open/pwrite/close
will allow to reduce syscall overhead for a number of cases.
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists