[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Random file I/O regressions in 2.6
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Peter Zaitsev <> wrote:
>>On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 13:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>Ram Pai <> wrote:
>>>>>The place which needs attention is handle_ra_miss(). But first I'd like to
>>>>>reacquaint myself with the intent behind the lazy-readahead patch. Was
>>>>>never happy with the complexity and special-cases which that introduced.
>>>>lazy-readahead has no role to play here.
>>Could you please clarify how this things become to be dependent on
>>read-ahead at all.
> readahead is currently the only means by which we build up nice large
> multi-page BIOs.
>>At my understanding read-ahead it to catch sequential (or other) access
>>pattern and do some advance reading, so instead of 16K request we do
>>128K request, or something similar.
> That's one of its usage patterns. It's also supposed to detect the
> fixed-sized-reads-seeking-all-over-the-place situation. In which case it's
> supposed to submit correctly-sized multi-page BIOs. But it's not working
> right for this workload.
> A naive solution would be to add special-case code which always does the
> fixed-size readahead after a seek. Basically that's
> if (ra->next_size == -1UL)
> force_page_cache_readahead(...)

I think a better solution to this case would be to ensure the
readahead window is always min(size of read, some large number);

The size of the read is basically a free and accurate "hint" to
the minimum size of the required readahead.

Either that or do a simple "preread" while you're still in the
read request window, and run readahead when that completes.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.055 / U:1.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site