lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: O_DIRECT question


On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Speaking of which, why did we obsolete raw devices? And/or why not just
> go with a minimal O_DIRECT on block device support? Not a rhetorical
> question -- I wasn't involved in the discussions when they happened, so
> I would be interested.

Lots of people want to put their databases in a file. Partitions really
weren't nearly flexible enough. So the whole raw device or O_DIRECT just
to the block device thing isn't really helping any.

> O_DIRECT is still crazily racy versus pagecache operations.

Yes. O_DIRECT is really fundamentally broken. There's just no way to fix
it sanely. Except by teaching people not to use it, and making the normal
paths fast enough (and that _includes_ doing things like dropping caches
more aggressively, but it probably would include more work on the device
queue merging stuff etc etc).

The "good" news is that CPU really is outperforming disk more and more, so
the extra cost of managing the page cache keeps on getting smaller and
smaller, and (fingers crossed) some day we can hopefully just drop
O_DIRECT and nobody will care.

Linus
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.114 / U:5.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site