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
| ||
|
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