[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()' Calls From 2.4 to 2.6 -- VMM Change?
    Ingo Oeser wrote:
    > On Saturday, 25. February 2006 06:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >>runs like a dog on 2.6's reiserfs. libc is doing a (probably) 128k read
    >>on every fseek.
    > Thats the bug. If I seek, I never like to have an read issued.
    > seek should just return whether the result is a valid offset
    > in the underlying object.
    > It is perfectly valid to have a real time device which produces data
    > very fast and where you are allowed to skip without reading anything.
    > This device coul be a pipe, which just allows forward seeking for exactly
    > this (implemented by me some years ago).
    >>- fseek is a pretty dumb function anyway - you're better off with
    >> stateless functions like pread() - half the number of syscalls, don't
    >> have to track where the file pointer is at. I don't know if there's a
    >> pread()-like function in stdio though?
    > pread and anything else not using RELATIVE descriptor offsets are not
    > very useful for pipe like interfaces that can seek, but just forward.
    > There are even cases, where you can seek forward and backward, but
    > only with relative offsets ever, because you have a circular buffer indexed by time.
    > If you like to get the last N minutes, the relative index is always stable,
    > but the absolute offset jumps.
    > So I hope glibc will fix fseek to work as advertised.
    > But for the simple file case all your answers are valid.

    Not really. The app is not silly if it does an fseek() then a _write_.
    Writing page sized and aligned chunks should not require previously
    uptodate pagecache, so doing a pre-read like this is a complete waste.

    Actually glibc tries to turn this pre-read off if the seek is to a page
    aligned offset, presumably to handle this case. However a big write
    would only have to RMW the first and last partial pages, so pre-reading
    128KB in this case is wrong.

    And I would also say a 4K read is wrong as well, because a big read will
    be less efficient due to the extra syscall and small IO.

    SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
    Send instant messages to your online friends

    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: 2006-02-26 14:55    [W:0.021 / U:15.952 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site