Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags

[Sunil Mushran]

On 04/22/2011 10:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > cp can read whatever blocksize it chooses. If that block contains
> > zero, it would signal cp that maybe it should SEEK_DATA and skip
> > reading all those blocks. That's all. We are not trying to achieve
> > perfection. We are just trying to reduce cpu waste.
> >
> > If the fs supports SEEK_*, then great. If it does not, then it is no
> > worse than before.
> But providing just SEEK_DATA _is_ worse than before if you don't provide
> the correct SEEK_HOLE everywhere.  Because then your algorithm of trying
> lseek(SEEK_DATA) after every run of zeros in the hopes of an
> optimization is a wasted syscall, since it will just return your current
> offset every time, so you end up with more syscalls than if you had used
> the single lseek(SEEK_DATA) that returns the end of the file up front,
> and known that the remainder of the file has no holes to even try
> seeking past.

You are over-optimizing. strace any process on your box and you
will find numerous wasted syscalls.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/