lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    Subjectmadvise failure
    In an application something like
    p = mmap(0, sz, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0);
    madvise(p, sz, MADV_SEQUENTIAL);
    is done for a small number of files, each with a size of a few GB.
    A single sequential pass is done over these files - essentially a merge.

    On an old machine the madvise is useful, and decreases total time.
    But on a more recent machine, with more memory, the madvise makes
    things worse. There, it seems better not to reveal to the kernel
    that the data will be read sequentially.

    Timing (six files of 4GB each, quadcore Intel Q9550, 16GB memory,
    kernel 2.6.27 [Ubuntu], two other processes active):
    with madvise, 7 runs: real time varying 9m10s - 37m29s,
    without madvise, 6 runs: real time fairly constant 5m45s - 5m54s.


    Andries



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-07 14:47    [W:0.028 / U:0.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site