[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: mmap vs. O_DIRECT
    On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:50 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:

    > I miss your point about synchronous, with hundreds of clients doing
    > small reads against a 10TB database, the benefit of pushing them through
    > the page cache isn't obvious. No particular data are in memory long
    > enough to have much chance of being shared, so it looks like overhead to
    > me. Feel free to educate me.

    There is a difference between being synchronous and not going through
    the page cache, although in Linux we don't really have the distinction.

    > I certainly DO want to put more users per server, and direct I/O has
    > proven itself in actual use. I'm not sure why you think the double copy
    > is a good thing, but I have good rea$on to want more users per server.
    > Alan: point on MAP_SHARED taken.

    BTW, Alan's point on MAP_SHARED is just that you can have the mmap
    region and the page cached region be one and the same. You still aren't
    doing direct I/O.

    Maybe that is ultimately what you want.

    It is rare to see direct I/O perform better when you use it as normal
    file I/O (e.g. don't perform your own caching and scheduling) but if you
    really do measure improvements, and if you never reaccess the data (and
    thus the lack of cache is not a problem), then by all means use it.

    But we still don't want to make normal mmap's be direct.

    Robert Love

    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: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.057 / U:5.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site