Message-ID: <20100421200104.GT27575@shareable.org>
Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:01:04 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: readahead on directories

Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 4/21/2010 2:51 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Fwiw, I found sorting directories by inode and reading them in that
> > order help to reduce seeks, some 10 years ago.  I implemented
> > something like 'find' which works like that, keeping a queue of
> > directories to read and things to open/stat, ordered by inode number
> > seen in d_ino before open/stat and st_ino after.  However it did not
> > try to readahead the blocks inside a directory, or sort operations by
> > block number.  It reduced some 'find'-like operations to about a
> > quarter of the time on cold cache.  I still use that program sometimes
> > before "git status" ;-)  Google "treescan" and "lokier" if you're
> > interested in trying it (though I use 0.7 which isn't published).
> 
> That helps with open()ing or stat()ing the files since you access the
> inodes in order, but ureadahead already preloads all of the inode tables
> so this won't help.

It helps a little with data access too, because of block group
locality tending to follow inode numbers.  Don't read inodes and data
in the same batch though.

> >> it is not about readdir(). Plain read() is synchronous too. But
> >> filesystem can respond to readahead calls and read next block to current
> >> one, while it won't do this for next direntry.
> > 
> > I'm surprised it makes much difference, as directories are usually not
> > very large anyway.
> 
> That's just it; it doesn't help.  That's why I want to readahead() all
> of the directories at once instead of reading them one block at a time.

Ok, this discussion has got a bit confused.  Text above refers to
needing to asynchronously read next block in a directory, but if they
are small then that's not important.

> > But if it does, go on, try FIEMAP and blockdev reading, you know you
> > want to :-)
> 
> Why reinvent the wheel when that's readahead()'s job?  As a workaround
> I'm about to try just threading all of the calls to open().

FIEMAP suggestion is only if you think you need to issue reads for
multiple blocks in the _same_ directory in parallel.  From what you say,
I doubt that's important.

FIEMAP is not relevant for reading different directories in parallel.
You'd still have to thread the FIEMAP calls for that - it's a
different problem.

> Each one will queue a read and block, but with them all doing so at
> once should fill the queue with plenty of reads.  It is inefficient,
> but better than one block at a time.

That was my first suggestion: threads with readdir(); I thought it had
been rejected hence the further discussion.

(Actually I would use clone + open + getdirentries + tiny userspace
stack to avoid using tons of memory.  But that's just a tweak, only to
be used if the threading is effective.)

-- Jamie

--
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