Message-Id: <200503102142.j2ALgCg04691@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: RE: Direct io on block device has performance regression on 2.6.x kernel
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:42:12 -0800
Thread-Index: AcUlsBu5zKSIru/zRQq5kx1iRP/wfAACXY9A
In-Reply-To: <20050310123043.69e5fd48.akpm@osdl.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1095
Lines: 29

Andrew Morton wrote on Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:31 PM
> >  > Fine-grained alignment is probably too hard, and it should fall back to
> >  > __blockdev_direct_IO().
> >  >
> >  > Does it do the right thing with a request which is non-page-aligned, but
> >  > 512-byte aligned?
> >  >
> >  > readv and writev?
> >  >
> >
> >  That's why direct_io_worker() is slower.  It does everything and handles
> >  every possible usage scenarios out there.  I hope making the function fatter
> >  is not in the plan.
>
> We just cannot make a change like this if it does not support readv and
> writev well, and if it does not support down-to-512-byte size and
> alignment.  It will break applications.

I must misread your mail.  Yes it does support 512-byte size and alignment.
Let me work on the readv/writev support (unless someone beat me to it).

- Ken


-
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/