On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > > I naively assumed, from the "readahead" in the name, that readahead > > would be submitting READA bios. It does not. > > > > I recently did some statistics on how many READ and READA requests > > we actually see on the block device level. > > I was suprised that READA is basically only used for file system > > internal meta data (and not even for all file systems), > > but _never_ for file data. > > > > A simple > > dd if=bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1 > > will absolutely cause readahead of the configured amount, no problem. > > But on the block device level, these are READ requests, where I'd > > expected them to be READA requests, based on the name. > > > > This is because __do_page_cache_readahead() calls read_pages(), > > which in turn is mapping->a_ops->readpages(), or, as fallback, > > mapping->a_ops->readpage(). > > > > On that level, all variants end up submitting as READ. > > > > This may even be intentional. > > But if so, I'd like to understand that. > > I don't think it's intentional, and if memory serves, we used to use > READA when submitting read-ahead. Not sure how best to improve the > situation, since (as you describe), we lose the read-ahead vs normal > read at that level. I did some experimentation some time ago for > flagging this, see: > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commitdiff;h=16cfe64e3568cda412b3cf6b7b891331946b595e > > which should pass down READA properly. One of the problems in the past was that reada would fail if there wasn't a free request when we actually wanted it to go ahead and wait. Or something. We've switched it around a few times I think. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
