[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DB1B62B.3000700@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:08:59 -0700
From: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
CC: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags
On 04/22/2011 10:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> cp can read whatever blocksize it chooses. If that block contains
>> zero, it would signal cp that maybe it should SEEK_DATA and skip
>> reading all those blocks. That's all. We are not trying to achieve
>> perfection. We are just trying to reduce cpu waste.
>>
>> If the fs supports SEEK_*, then great. If it does not, then it is no
>> worse than before.
> But providing just SEEK_DATA _is_ worse than before if you don't provide
> the correct SEEK_HOLE everywhere. Because then your algorithm of trying
> lseek(SEEK_DATA) after every run of zeros in the hopes of an
> optimization is a wasted syscall, since it will just return your current
> offset every time, so you end up with more syscalls than if you had used
> the single lseek(SEEK_DATA) that returns the end of the file up front,
> and known that the remainder of the file has no holes to even try
> seeking past.
You are over-optimizing. strace any process on your box and you
will find numerous wasted syscalls.
--
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