Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756831Ab2JZHgf (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:36:35 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:60903 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756554Ab2JZHge (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:36:34 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,653,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="160848324" Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:36:30 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: Ni zhan Chen Cc: Dave Chinner , YingHang Zhu , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: remove redundant ra_pages in file_ra_state Message-ID: <20121026073630.GA12886@localhost> References: <50889FF1.9030107@gmail.com> <20121025025826.GB23462@localhost> <20121026002544.GI29378@dastard> <20121026012758.GA6282@localhost> <5089F5AD.5040708@gmail.com> <20121026065855.GA9179@localhost> <508A35B0.30106@gmail.com> <20121026070936.GA12282@localhost> <508A399D.6000506@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <508A399D.6000506@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1831 Lines: 46 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-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/