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: <508A44F0.4080606@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:08:16 +0800
From:	Ni zhan Chen <nizhan.chen@...il.com>
To:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	YingHang Zhu <casualfisher@...il.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: remove redundant ra_pages in file_ra_state

On 10/26/2012 04:02 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:47:19PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
>> On 10/26/2012 03:36 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:19:57PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2012 03:09 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:03:12PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/2012 02:58 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>   static void shrink_readahead_size_eio(struct file *filp,
>>>>>>>>                                          struct file_ra_state *ra)
>>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>> -       ra->ra_pages /= 4;
>>>>>>>> +       spin_lock(&filp->f_lock);
>>>>>>>> +       filp->f_mode |= FMODE_RANDOM;
>>>>>>>> +       spin_unlock(&filp->f_lock);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As the example in comment above this function, the read maybe still
>>>>>>>> sequential, and it will waste IO bandwith if modify to FMODE_RANDOM
>>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>> Yes immediately disabling readahead may hurt IO performance, the
>>>>>>> original '/ 4' may perform better when there are only 1-3 IO errors
>>>>>>> encountered.
>>>>>> Hi Fengguang,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the number should be 1-3?
>>>>> The original behavior is '/= 4' on each error.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 1 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/4
>>>>> After 2 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/16
>>>>> After 3 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/64
>>>>> After 4 errors, readahead size will be effectively 0 (disabled)
>>>> But from function shrink_readahead_size_eio and its caller
>>>> filemap_fault I can't find the behavior you mentioned. How you
>>>> figure out it?
>>> It's this line in shrink_readahead_size_eio():
>>>
>>>          ra->ra_pages /= 4;
>> Yeah, I mean why the 4th readahead size will be 0(disabled)? What's
>> the original value of ra->ra_pages? How can guarantee the 4th shrink
>> readahead size can be 0?
> Ah OK, I'm talking about the typical case. The default readahead size
> is 128k, which will become 0 after / 256. The reasonable good ra size
> for hard disks is 1MB=256pages, which also becomes 1page after 4 errors.

Then why default size is not set to reasonable size?

Regards,
Chen

>
> 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/