[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110916131929.GA27738@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:19:30 -0400
From: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Improve lseek scalability v3
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 07:00:55AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:06:46PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Currently generic_file_llseek users synchronize all on the inode i_mutex,
> > which is very heavy handed because it affects even different processes.
> >
> > This patchkit attempts to make generic_file_llseek (mostly) lockless.
>
> Yes, but, are there any real workloads which care? I know will-it-scale
> says that lseek doesn't scale, but any real app which has a seek-heavy
> workload is surely using pread()/pwrite() by now ... after all, they
> were in UNIX98 so they've been a standard for 13 years.
>
Apparently postgresql uses lseek heavily
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/08/linux-and-glibc-scalability.html
Thanks,
Josef
--
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