Re: Unexpected splice "always copy" behavior observed

From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 11:57:38 EST

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:33 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Btw, since you apparently have a real case - is the "splice to file"
> > > always just an append? IOW, if I'm not right in assuming that the only
> > > sane thing people would reasonable care about is "append to a file", then
> > > holler now.
> >
> > Virtual machines might reasonably need this for splicing to a disk
> > image.
> This comes down to balancing speed and complexity. Perhaps a copy is
> fine in this case.
> I'm concerned about high speed tracing, where we are always just taking
> pages from the trace ring buffer and appending them to a file or sending
> them off to the network. The slower this is, the more likely you will
> lose events.
> If the "move only on append to file" is easy to implement, I would
> really like to see that happen. The speed of splicing a disk image for a
> virtual machine only impacts the patience of the user. The speed of
> splicing tracing output, impacts how much you can trace without losing
> events.

I'm with Steven here. I only care about appending full pages at the end of a
file. If possible, I'd also like to steal back the pages after waiting for the
writeback I/O to complete so we can put them back in the ring buffer without
stressing the page cache and the page allocator needlessly.



Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS 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
Please read the FAQ at