e trouble is that you still need the VM to go around and clean up
those pages if you need the memory for something else. There's a big
difference between "can be freed" and "are forcibly freed". O_DIRECT
behaves like the latter: the memory is automatically reclaimed after
use so i
pages if you need the memory for something else. There's a big
difference between can be freed and are forcibly freed. O_DIRECT
behaves like the latter: the memory is automatically reclaimed after
use so it results in no memory pressure at all, whereas the
MADV_SEQUENTIAL type of behaviour just
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen C. Tweedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 06:27:13PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>
>> Any chance of something like O_SEQUENTIAL (like madvise(MADV_SEQUENTIAL))
>
>What for? The kernel already optimises readahead and
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 06:27:13PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stephen C. Tweedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For these reasons, buffered IO is often faster than O_DIRECT for pure
> >sequential access. The do
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen C. Tweedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For these reasons, buffered IO is often faster than O_DIRECT for pure
>sequential access. The downside it its greater CPU cost and the fact
>that it pollutes the cache (which, in turn, causes even
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 12:34:35AM +0400, Samium Gromoff wrote:
>
> This is interesting, because one real advantage
> of O_DIRECT are these greased weasel fast 15-20 Mb/s
> file copies, which ones makes windoze users to look
> on us as on lesser be
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 12:34:35AM +0400, Samium Gromoff wrote:
This is interesting, because one real advantage
of O_DIRECT are these greased weasel fast 15-20 Mb/s
file copies, which ones makes windoze users to look
on us as on lesser beings.
Not true.
O_DIRECT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephen C. Tweedie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For these reasons, buffered IO is often faster than O_DIRECT for pure
sequential access. The downside it its greater CPU cost and the fact
that it pollutes the cache (which, in turn, causes even _more_ CPU
overhead when
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 06:27:13PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephen C. Tweedie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For these reasons, buffered IO is often faster than O_DIRECT for pure
sequential access. The downside it its greater CPU cost and the fact
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephen C. Tweedie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 06:27:13PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Any chance of something like O_SEQUENTIAL (like madvise(MADV_SEQUENTIAL))
What for? The kernel already optimises readahead and writebehind
At 21:34 03/07/2001, Samium Gromoff wrote:
[snip]
>One more problem i see here, and i think it is an
> *extremely* important one, that making open( ... ,
> BLA_BLA_BLA | O_DIRECT) is a thing some people may
> overspeculate with. I mean that implementing O_DIRECT
&
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> Maybe i`m missing the whole point, and thus i want to
> hear what other people will tell about it.
Several of us are working on it.
-ben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
HI folks, sometime ago i seen on lkml a post
from >< regarding the implementation of O_DIRECT.
The thing about to care, is the fact, that *nobody*,
reacted on this post. It seems to me that nobody was
happy enough about this to tell "oh y
HI folks, sometime ago i seen on lkml a post
from regarding the implementation of O_DIRECT.
The thing about to care, is the fact, that *nobody*,
reacted on this post. It seems to me that nobody was
happy enough about this to tell oh yes! at last
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Samium Gromoff wrote:
Maybe i`m missing the whole point, and thus i want to
hear what other people will tell about it.
Several of us are working on it.
-ben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
At 21:34 03/07/2001, Samium Gromoff wrote:
[snip]
One more problem i see here, and i think it is an
*extremely* important one, that making open( ... ,
BLA_BLA_BLA | O_DIRECT) is a thing some people may
overspeculate with. I mean that implementing O_DIRECT
in cp(1
16 matches
Mail list logo
