[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121216051757.GA6746@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:17:57 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 03:59:53AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > I want the first read() to happen sooner than it would under current
> > fadvise.
>
> You're not listening. You do not need the kernel to be modified to
> avoid the latency of issuing 1GB of readahead on a file.
>
> You don't need to do readahead before the first read. Nor do you do
> need to wait for 1GB of readhead to be issued before you do the
> first read.
>
> You could do readahead *concurrently* with the first read, so the
> first read only blocks until the readahead of the first part of the
> file completes. i.e. just do readahead() in a background thread and
> don't wait for it to complete before doing the first read.
What you describe with concurrent readahead() is _exactly_ what my test
program (in other email) does with the RA environment variable set.
I know I do not _need_ fadvise + background WILLNEED support in the
kernel.
But I think the kernel can make life easier and allow us to avoid doing
background threads or writing our own (inferior) caching in userspace.
--
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