xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: preadv2/pwritev2 updates

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: preadv2/pwritev2 updates
From: Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:58:01 -0400
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1412197494-7655-1-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx>
References: <1412197494-7655-1-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx>
I'm haven't gotten to many comments back from the last set of patches.
So I imagine that people are okay with the interface and the general
code.

The next submission will probably rename the call to preadv6/pwritev6
just to follow the interface ... but I don't think they'll be any
other changes; so no need to wait on me. How should we go about
packaging this up for mainline inclusion?

Additionally, I've been testing it with out application in and in the
test environment we've a 30% reduction in average response time. We
might be kind of a best case since we do a fair amount of CPU / IO
bound work overlapped and this lets us skip the threadpool queue in a
huge chunk of the cases. But the gains are real... for a real
application.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> attached are the patches that go on top of your
> "[RFC v3 0/4] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)"
> series.  The first one adds RWF_NONBLOCK to XFS, the other two
> add a new RWF_DSYNC flag that adds a per-operation O_DSYNC flag.
>



-- 
Milosz Tanski
CTO
16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
New York, NY 10016

p: 646-253-9055
e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>