Hi Fengguang,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:47:19PM +0800, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
>> On 10/26/2012 03:36 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> >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;
>>
>> Yeah, I mean why the 4th readahead size will be 0(disabled)? What's
>> the original value of ra->ra_pages? How can guarantee the 4th shrink
>> readahead size can be 0?
>
> Ah OK, I'm talking about the typical case. The default readahead size
> is 128k, which will become 0 after / 256. The reasonable good ra size
> for hard disks is 1MB=256pages, which also becomes 1page after 4 errors.
How do you feel about my previous mail of error statistics, in fact I
prefer treating these files independently, so do some check for FMODE_RANDOM
before we change the readahead window to avoid trashing the read ahead window,
If the user applications call fadvise but the media turn out to be
error-prone, after one
read we know the situation and set the file in FMODE_RANDOM, this should solve
the issue Dave raised.
Do I miss something? Thanks in advance.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
--
Thanks,
Ying Zhu
--
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
