[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110919132500.GA16740@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:25:00 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@...wman.net>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
robertmhaas@...il.com, pgsql-hackers@...tgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improve lseek scalability v3
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:31:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Benjamin LaHaise (bcrl@...ck.org) wrote:
> > For such tables, can't Postgres track the size of the file internally? I'm
> > assuming it's keeping file descriptors open on the tables it manages, in
> > which case when it writes to a file to extend it, the internally stored size
> > could be updated. Not making a syscall at all would scale far better than
> > even a modified lseek() will perform.
>
> We'd have to have it in shared memory and have a lock around it, it
> wouldn't be cheap at all.
Yep, that makes perfect sense. After all, the kernel does basically the
same thing to maintain this information; why should we have userspace
duplicating the same infrastructure?
I must admit, I'd never heard of this usage of lseek to get the current
size of a file before; I'd assumed everybody used fstat. Given this
legitimate reason for a high-frequency calling of lseek, I withdraw my
earlier objection to the patch series.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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