Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] readahead: introduce O_RANDOM for POSIX_FADV_RANDOM

[Andreas Dilger]

On 2010-01-04, at 09:50, Quentin Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:33:28PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:17:19PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@
> > > > #define O_NDELAY	O_NONBLOCK
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +#ifndef O_RANDOM
> > > > +#define O_RANDOM	010000000	/* random access pattern hint */
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > This value conflicts with O_CLOEXEC on alpha and parisc and  
> > > O_NOATIME on
> > > sparc.
> >
> > Also when I tried to use this value for O_RSYNC and tested it I could
> > not actually see it getting propagated by the open code.
> >
> > Eitherway I don't think an O_ value is a good idea for a simple  
> > access
> > pattern hint.
>
> I was surprised by Wu's O_RANDOM approach, but after thinking about
> it, I liked it.  I'm used to seeing (on non-UNIX OSes) a parameter
> as part of the open syscall that announces to the OS what the app's
> access strategy through that file descriptor will be for that file.
> An issue with the current fadvise(2) approach is for random access
> files it necessitates two syscalls (open plus fadvise) for what
> could be or should be only one syscall (open).


Given that syscall overhead is very minimal, especially since fadvise  
is only setting some in-memory state and doesn't have to flush cache  
or anything, I don't see that as a significant reason to consume an O_  
flag.  Those flags are essentially limited to 32-bit values, or 32-bit  
applications wouldn't be able to use all of the flags, and we are  
already into the mid-20's of bits.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/