mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Xuan Baldauf <xuan--lkml@baldauf.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Reiserfs List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Heuristic readahead for filesystems
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:03:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020911190337.GG14900@louise.pinerecords.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0209111340060.1857-100000@imladris.surriel.com>

> > I wonder wether Linux implements a kind of heuristic
> > readahead for filesystems:
> 
> > If an application did a stat()..open()..read() sequence on a
> > file, it is likely that, after the next stat(), it will open
> > and read the mentioned file. Thus, one could readahead the
> > start of a file on stat() of that file.
> 
> > Example: See this diff strace:
> 
> Your observation is right, but I'm not sure how much it will
> matter if we start reading the file at stat() time or at
> read() time.
> 
> This is because one disk seek takes about 10 million CPU
> cycles on modern systems and we'll have completed the stat(),
> open() and started the read() before the disk arm has started
> moving ;)

Please correct me if I'm missing something: I tend to assume
that if the cost of the disk seek is known to be a relatively
huge value, a fraction of it could be used as a timeout for disk
read request reordering with performance not deteriorating (except
for the heuristics overhead of course). I.e., if some code in the
block layer were able to detect a lot of "parallel yet sequential"
reads were going on, the amount of seeks could be minimized for
the price of the final timeout.

T.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2002-09-11 18:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-11 15:42 Xuan Baldauf
2002-09-11 16:33 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-09-11 17:03   ` jdow
2002-09-11 17:20     ` Davide Libenzi
2002-09-11 17:51       ` jdow
2002-09-11 17:16   ` Hans Reiser
2002-09-11 16:42 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-11 17:20   ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-11 17:56   ` Xuan Baldauf
2002-09-11 18:30     ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-11 18:43       ` Xuan Baldauf
2002-09-11 19:04         ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-11 19:21           ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-12  0:45             ` jw schultz
2002-09-12  1:58               ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-12 11:41               ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-12 13:35                 ` jw schultz
2002-09-12 21:33                 ` jdow
2002-09-16 12:52                   ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-17  1:45                     ` jdow
2002-09-17 10:37                       ` jbradford
2002-09-17  5:19                     ` jdow
2002-09-12 12:41               ` Jesse Pollard
2002-09-11 19:03   ` Tomas Szepe [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020911190337.GG14900@louise.pinerecords.com \
    --to=szepe@pinerecords.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.com \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    --cc=xuan--lkml@baldauf.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®