From: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Marr <marr@flex.com>,
reiserfs-dev@namesys.com
Subject: Re: Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()' Calls From 2.4 to 2.6 -- VMM Change?
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:07:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200602261407.33262.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060224211650.569248d0.akpm@osdl.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1394 bytes --]
On Saturday, 25. February 2006 06:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
> runs like a dog on 2.6's reiserfs. libc is doing a (probably) 128k read
> on every fseek.
Thats the bug. If I seek, I never like to have an read issued.
seek should just return whether the result is a valid offset
in the underlying object.
It is perfectly valid to have a real time device which produces data
very fast and where you are allowed to skip without reading anything.
This device coul be a pipe, which just allows forward seeking for exactly
this (implemented by me some years ago).
> - fseek is a pretty dumb function anyway - you're better off with
> stateless functions like pread() - half the number of syscalls, don't
> have to track where the file pointer is at. I don't know if there's a
> pread()-like function in stdio though?
pread and anything else not using RELATIVE descriptor offsets are not
very useful for pipe like interfaces that can seek, but just forward.
There are even cases, where you can seek forward and backward, but
only with relative offsets ever, because you have a circular buffer indexed by time.
If you like to get the last N minutes, the relative index is always stable,
but the absolute offset jumps.
So I hope glibc will fix fseek to work as advertised.
But for the simple file case all your answers are valid.
Regards
Ingo Oeser
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-26 13:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-24 20:22 Marr
2006-02-25 5:16 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-26 13:07 ` Ingo Oeser [this message]
2006-02-26 13:50 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-26 14:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 20:52 ` Hans Reiser
2006-02-28 0:34 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-28 18:42 ` Hans Reiser
2006-02-28 18:51 ` Hans Reiser
2006-02-27 20:24 ` Marr
2006-02-27 21:53 ` Hans Reiser
2006-02-28 0:03 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-02-28 18:38 ` Hans Reiser
2006-03-05 23:02 ` Readahead value 128K? (was Re: Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()' Calls From 2.4 to 2.6 -- VMM Change?) Linda Walsh
2006-03-07 19:53 ` Marr
2006-03-07 21:15 ` Linda Walsh
2006-03-12 21:53 ` Marr
2006-03-12 22:15 ` Mark Lord
2006-03-13 4:36 ` Marr
2006-03-13 14:41 ` Mark Lord
2006-03-13 18:15 ` Hans Reiser
2006-03-13 20:00 ` Marr
[not found] <5JRJO-6Al-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-02-24 23:31 ` Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()' Calls From 2.4 to 2.6 -- VMM Change? Robert Hancock
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=200602261407.33262.ioe-lkml@rameria.de \
--to=ioe-lkml@rameria.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marr@flex.com \
--cc=reiserfs-dev@namesys.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®