Re: File IO performance

From: Steve Lord (
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 16:15:46 EST

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> <snip>
> > A break in the on disk mapping of data could be used to stop readahead
> > I suppose, especially if getting that readahead page is going to
> > involve evicting other pages. I suspect that doing this time of thing
> > is probably getting too complex for it's own good though.
> >
> > Try breaking the readahead loop apart, folding the page_cache_read into
> > the loop, doing all the page allocates first, and then all the readpage
> > calls.
> Its too dangerous it seems --- the amount of pages which are
> allocated/locked/mapped/submitted together must be based on the number of
> free pages otherwise you can run into an oom deadlock when you have a
> relatively high number of pages allocated/locked.

Which says that as you ask for pages to put the readahead in, you want to
get a failure back under memory pressure, you push out what you allocated
already and carry on.

> > I suspect you really need to go a bit further and get the mapping of
> > all the pages fixed up before you do the actual reads.
> Hum, also think about a no-buffer-head deadlock when we're under a
> critical number of buffer heads while having quite a few buffer heads
> locked which are not going to be queued until all needed buffer heads are
> allocated.

All this is probably attempting to be too clever for its own good, there is
probably a much simpler way to get more things happening in parallel. Plus, in
reality, lots of apps will spend some time between read calls processing
data, so there is overlap, a benchmark doing just reads is the end case
of all of this.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:25 EST