Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:42:28 +1300 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1 |
| |
On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 08:58:41PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> It will be pretty simple to add a soft-page-fault fencepost to the > page cache to allow us to prime the next readahead chunk before we > have finished accessing the current one in the case of sequential > access, which will allow us to sustain even faster sequential IO > rates on fast disks.
But doesn't this assume we'll sequentially access mmap regions?
I though the whole idea of madvise was to tell the OS what kind of access we're likely to make to a region.
I really don't fully understand why madvise is a bad thing, I don't see how the OS can possibly know better than the application about future access patterns....
-cw
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |