lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 23/43] CacheFiles: Permit the page lock state to be monitored [ver #46]
Date
On Friday 03 April 2009 04:05:07 David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Presumably: at the point where data is needed.
>
> But the point where the data is needed is where filemap.c is waiting on a
> netfs page. Maybe the sync_page() aop can deal with it

I was thinking of more like just have some threads submitting the reads
and unlocking the waiters.


> There's also the problem of recording and pinning the backing page I'm waiting
> for. Currently I can do that by hooking the monitor block into the page
> unlock watching list. If I don't do that, I have to use up yet more memory to
> track those some other way. It's not impossible, but I'd like to keep memory
> usage down.
>
> > Or do you actually have numbers showing a problem if you just read the pages
> > then copy them?
>
> I did, years ago. It wasn't particularly good, but
> fscache_read_or_alloc_pages() was completely synchronous.

Performance wasn't good? Why?


> > If there is a problem, then why doesn't fscache_read_or_alloc_pages caller
> > do the work itself, then you get as many threads as you have indivisible
> > work units, so completing some part of the request before another wouldn't
> > gain you anything anyway...
>
> (1) Trond stipulated FS-Cache had to be asynchronous, and it is, as far as I
> can make it. I still have to invoke bmap() synchronously, though, to find
> out whether I have a page in the cache to read:-/

Why does it have to be asynchronous? Seems like an incredible complexity.
->readpage is called only in synchonous contexts, and ->readpages not but
do you even have the netfs filesystem request readahead on the backing
filesystem? (which then presumably tries to do readahead of its own)


> (2) You lose the advantage of being able to process what you've got whilst the
> disk is fetching stuff in the background.

This should happen via readahead on the underlying filesystem, shouldn't
it?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-02 20:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site