On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:19:57PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 03:09 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:03:12PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
> >>On 10/26/2012 02:58 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >>>> static void shrink_readahead_size_eio(struct file *filp,
> >>>> struct file_ra_state *ra)
> >>>> {
> >>>>- ra->ra_pages /= 4;
> >>>>+ spin_lock(&filp->f_lock);
> >>>>+ filp->f_mode |= FMODE_RANDOM;
> >>>>+ spin_unlock(&filp->f_lock);
> >>>>
> >>>>As the example in comment above this function, the read maybe still
> >>>>sequential, and it will waste IO bandwith if modify to FMODE_RANDOM
> >>>>directly.
> >>>Yes immediately disabling readahead may hurt IO performance, the
> >>>original '/ 4' may perform better when there are only 1-3 IO errors
> >>>encountered.
> >>Hi Fengguang,
> >>
> >>Why the number should be 1-3?
> >The original behavior is '/= 4' on each error.
> >
> >After 1 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/4
> >After 2 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/16
> >After 3 errors, readahead size will be shrinked by 1/64
> >After 4 errors, readahead size will be effectively 0 (disabled)
>
> But from function shrink_readahead_size_eio and its caller
> filemap_fault I can't find the behavior you mentioned. How you
> figure out it?
It's this line in shrink_readahead_size_eio():
ra->ra_pages /= 4;
That ra_pages will keep shrinking by 4 on each error. The only way to
restore it is to reopen the file, or POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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
