linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: remove redundant ra_pages in file_ra

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: <CAA9v8mESzPQ6gONDYyZTvCvHYb+MvW0dTmkyjWmX72PPufraqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:12:33 +0800
From:	YingHang Zhu <casualfisher@...il.com>
To:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ni zhan Chen <nizhan.chen@...il.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: remove redundant ra_pages in file_ra_state

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> Hi Chen,
>
>> But how can bdi related ra_pages reflect different files' readahead
>> window? Maybe these different files are sequential read, random read
>> and so on.
>
> It's simple: sequential reads will get ra_pages readahead size while
> random reads will not get readahead at all.
>
> Talking about the below chunk, it might hurt someone that explicitly
> takes advantage of the behavior, however the ra_pages*2 seems more
> like a hack than general solution to me: if the user will need
> POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL to double the max readahead window size for
> improving IO performance, then why not just increase bdi->ra_pages and
> benefit all reads? One may argue that it offers some differential
> behavior to specific applications, however it may also present as a
> counter-optimization: if the root already tuned bdi->ra_pages to the
> optimal size, the doubled readahead size will only cost more memory
> and perhaps IO latency.
I agree, we should choose the reasonable solution here.

Thanks,
     Ying Zhu
>
> --- a/mm/fadvise.c
> +++ b/mm/fadvise.c
> @@ -87,7 +86,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE(fadvise64_64)(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int advice)
>                 spin_unlock(&file->f_lock);
>                 break;
>         case POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL:
> -               file->f_ra.ra_pages = bdi->ra_pages * 2;
>                 spin_lock(&file->f_lock);
>                 file->f_mode &= ~FMODE_RANDOM;
>                 spin_unlock(&file->f_lock);
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
--
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/