Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT) | From | "Jeffrey W. Baker" <> | Subject | Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 |
| |
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Stefan Hoffmeister wrote:
> : On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:42:56 -0300 (BRST), Rik van Riel wrote: > > >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote: > > > >> Or that we're doing big sequential reads of file(s) which are > >> larger than memory, in which case expanding the cache size buys > >> us nothing, and can actually hurt us alot. > > > >That's a big "OR". I think we should have an algorithm to > >see which of these two is the case, otherwise we're just > >making the wrong decision half of the time. > > Windows NT/2000 has flags that can be for each CreateFile operation > ("open" in Unix terms), for instance > > FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY > > FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH > FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING > FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS > FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN > > If Linux does not have mechanism that would allow the signalling of > specific use case, it might be helpful to implement such a hinting system?
These flags would be really handy. We already have the raw device for sequential reading of e.g. CDROM and DVD devices.
-jwb
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |