From: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>,
simon@baydel.com, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: File IO performance
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:15:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200102142115.f1ELFk007175@jen.americas.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Message from Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:38:59 -0200." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102141438470.31465-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > A break in the on disk mapping of data could be used to stop readahead
> > I suppose, especially if getting that readahead page is going to
> > involve evicting other pages. I suspect that doing this time of thing
> > is probably getting too complex for it's own good though.
> >
> > Try breaking the readahead loop apart, folding the page_cache_read into
> > the loop, doing all the page allocates first, and then all the readpage
> > calls.
>
> Its too dangerous it seems --- the amount of pages which are
> allocated/locked/mapped/submitted together must be based on the number of
> free pages otherwise you can run into an oom deadlock when you have a
> relatively high number of pages allocated/locked.
Which says that as you ask for pages to put the readahead in, you want to
get a failure back under memory pressure, you push out what you allocated
already and carry on.
>
> > I suspect you really need to go a bit further and get the mapping of
> > all the pages fixed up before you do the actual reads.
>
> Hum, also think about a no-buffer-head deadlock when we're under a
> critical number of buffer heads while having quite a few buffer heads
> locked which are not going to be queued until all needed buffer heads are
> allocated.
All this is probably attempting to be too clever for its own good, there is
probably a much simpler way to get more things happening in parallel. Plus, in
reality, lots of apps will spend some time between read calls processing
data, so there is overlap, a benchmark doing just reads is the end case
of all of this.
Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-14 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-14 12:47 File IO performance simon
2001-02-14 14:07 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2001-02-14 17:19 ` simon
2001-02-14 17:44 ` Steve Lord
2001-02-14 17:38 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2001-02-14 21:15 ` Steve Lord [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200102142115.f1ELFk007175@jen.americas.sgi.com \
--to=lord@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=simon@baydel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).