Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269173AbUJKTAZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:00:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269175AbUJKTAZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:00:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:16307 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269173AbUJKTAX (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:00:23 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16746.55283.192591.718383@segfault.boston.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:58:59 -0400 To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch rfc] towards supporting O_NONBLOCK on regular files In-Reply-To: <1097519553.2128.115.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> References: <16733.50382.569265.183099@segfault.boston.redhat.com> <20041005112752.GA21094@logos.cnet> <16739.61314.102521.128577@segfault.boston.redhat.com> <20041006120158.GA8024@logos.cnet> <1097119895.4339.12.camel@orbit.scot.redhat.com> <20041007101213.GC10234@logos.cnet> <1097519553.2128.115.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 13) "Rational FORTRAN" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: jmoyer@redhat.com X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1517 Lines: 35 ==> Regarding Re: [patch rfc] towards supporting O_NONBLOCK on regular files; "Stephen C. Tweedie" adds: sct> Hi, On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 11:12, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> Oh yes, theres also the indirect blocks which we might need to read from >> disk. sct> Right. >> Now the question is, how strict should the O_NONBLOCK implementation be >> in reference to "not blocking" ? sct> Well, I suspect that depends on the application. But if you've got an sct> app that really wants to make sure its hot path is as fast as possible sct> (eg. a high-throughput server multiplexing disk IO and networking sct> through a single event loop), then ideally the app would want to punt sct> any blocking disk IO to another thread. sct> So it's a matter of significant extra programing for a small extra sct> reduction in app blocking potential. sct> I think it's worth getting this right in the long term, though. sct> Getting readahead of indirect blocks right has other benefits too --- sct> eg. we may be able to fix the situation where we end up trying to read sct> indirect blocks before we've even submitted the IO for the previous sct> data blocks, breaking the IO pipeline ordering. So for the short term, are you an advocate of the patch posted? -Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/