On Sunday 28 January 2007 16:18, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Friday 26 January 2007 19:23, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >> Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 25 January 2007 21:45, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >>>> Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> But even single-threaded I/O but in large quantities benefits from O_DIRECT
> >>>> significantly, and I pointed this out before.
> >>> Which shouldn't be true. There is no fundamental reason why
> >>> ordinary writes should be slower than O_DIRECT.
> >>>
> >> Other than the copy to buffer taking CPU and memory resources.
> >
> > It is not required by any standard that I know. Kernel can be smarter
> > and avoid that if it can.
>
> Actually, no, the whole idea of page cache is that overall system i/o
> can be faster if data sit in the page cache for a while. But the real
> problem is that the application write is now disconnected from the
> physical write, both in time and order.
Not in O_SYNC case.
> No standard says the kernel couldn't do direct DMA, but since having
> that required is needed to guarantee write order and error status linked
> to the actual application i/o, what a kernel "might do" is irrelevant.
>
> It's much easier to do O_DIRECT by actually doing the direct i/o than to
> try to catch all the corner cases which arise in faking it.
I still don't see much difference between O_SYNC and O_DIRECT write
semantic.
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
