linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Disabling read-ahead makes I/O of large reads small

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87aax18xms.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:04:43 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Quentin Barnes <qbarnes+nfs@...oo-inc.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Disabling read-ahead makes I/O of large reads small

Quentin Barnes <qbarnes+nfs@...oo-inc.com> writes:

cc fengguang who is Mr.Readahead. The full description+patch
is in the archives.

> In porting some application code to Linux, its performance over
> NFSv3 on Linux is terrible.  I'm posting this note to LKML since
> the problem was actually tracked back to the VFS layer.
[...]
> I have no idea if my patch is the appropriate fix.  I'm well out of
> my area in this part of the kernel.  It solves this one problem, but
> I have no idea how many boundary cases it doesn't cover or even if
> it is the right way to go about addressing this issue.
>
> Is this behavior of shorting I/O of read(2) considered a bug?  And
> is this approach for a fix approriate?

It sounds like a (performance) bug to me.

>From a quick look your fix looks reasonable to me.

-Andi


-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/