mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Berkley Shands <berkley@cs.wustl.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A fix for Re: Severe I/O performance regression 2.6.6 to 2.6.7 or 2.6.8-rc3
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:57:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040806215716.52e36a54.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200408061312.i76DChO0000119045@mudpuddle.cs.wustl.edu>

Berkley Shands <berkley@cs.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> Taking the 2.6.6-bk6/mm/readahead.c (a one line change from vanilla 2.6.6/mm/readahead.c)
>  and inserting it into 2.6.7 and 2.6.8-rc3 restores the thread read ahead functionality
>  and througput seen in the 2.6.6 kernel. This does however reduce the single stream read
>  performance from 426MB/Sec (under 2.6.8-rc3) to 386MB/Sec (same as 2.6.6).
>  The major functionality change was to try to detect "random" read performance,
>  if randomness is detected, then NEVER read ahead. In this case, two threads
>  using two different file descriptors to the same file read alternating strides
>  of the file. Since each thread did not do SEQUENTIAL reads, both were treated as random
>  accesses.

Let me attempt to clarify here.  You have two fd's open against the same
file and you are reading in the following manner:

fd1:   0-11k        33-44k        55-66k
fd2:         11-22k        44-55k

yes?

If correct, I think you're expecting a bit too much of the readahead
system.  If you have a real application which is using such access patterns
perhaps it should be taught to use POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED.

      reply	other threads:[~2004-08-07  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-06 13:12 Berkley Shands
2004-08-07  4:57 ` Andrew Morton [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=20040806215716.52e36a54.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=berkley@cs.wustl.edu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    /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®