On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 08:59 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:21:27PM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Badari,
>
> > Following patches add support to map multiple blocks in ->get_block().
> > This is will allow us to handle mapping of multiple disk blocks for
> > mpage_readpages() and mpage_writepages() etc. Instead of adding new
> > argument, I use "b_size" to indicate the amount of disk mapping needed
> > for get_block(). And also, on success get_block() actually indicates
> > the amount of disk mapping it did.
>
> Thanks for doing this work!
>
> > Now that get_block() can handle multiple blocks, there is no need
> > for ->get_blocks() which was added for DIO.
> >
> > [PATCH 1/3] pass b_size to ->get_block()
> >
> > [PATCH 2/3] map multiple blocks for mpage_readpages()
> >
> > [PATCH 3/3] remove ->get_blocks() support
> >
> > I noticed decent improvements (reduced sys time) on JFS, XFS and ext3.
> > (on simple "dd" read tests).
> >
> > (rc3.mm1) (rc3.mm1 + patches)
> > real 0m18.814s 0m18.482s
> > user 0m0.000s 0m0.004s
> > sys 0m3.240s 0m2.912s
> >
> > Andrew, Could you include it in -mm tree ?
> >
> > Comments ?
>
> I've been running these patches in my development tree for awhile
> and have not seen any problems. My one (possibly minor) concern
> is that we pass get_block a size in units of bytes, e.g....
>
> bh->b_size = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
> err = get_block(inode, block, bh, 1);
>
> And b_size is a u32. We have had the situation in the past where
> people (I'm looking at you, Jeremy ;) have been issuing multiple-
> gigabyte direct reads/writes through XFS. The syscall interface
> takes an (s)size_t in bytes, which on 64 bit platforms is a 64 bit
> byte count.
> I wonder if this change will end up ruining things for the lunatic
> fringe issuing these kinds of IOs? Maybe the get_block call could
> take a block count rather than a byte count?
Yes. I thought about it too.. I wanted to pass "block count" instead
of "byte count". Right now it does ..
bh->b_size = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
call get_block();
First thing get_block() does is
blocks = bh->b_size >> inode->i_blkbits;
All, the unnecessary shifting around for nothing :(
But, I ended up doing "byte count" just to avoid confusion of
asking in "blocks" getting back in "bytes".
I have no problem making b_size as "size_t" to handle 64-bit.
But again, if we are fiddling with buffer_head - may be its time
to look at alternative to "buffer_head" with the information exactly
we need for getblock() ?
Thanks,
Badari
-
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]
