Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:26:24 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: james@westongold.com (James Mansion) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mmap() Message-ID: <199705161426.JAA01426@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <337C3FAE.4295@westongold.com> from James Mansion at "May 16, 97 12:06:22 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > > Maybe you can convince John Dyson that coding this would be fun (it > > > > might even actually *be* fun 8-)), and then checking the degradation > > > > this causes in the general case to see if it's unacceptably high for > > > > your special case. > > > > > > I can't see that this would be a high cost. You'd only tell the real > > > benefit on a loaded system anyway. > > > > It would have a cost higher than not doing it (ie: non-zero). Using > > mmap() and then doing sequential I/O is probably a very limited market, > Okay!!! Firstly, the FFS FS dependent VOP_GETPAGES does do read-aheads iff the object is marked with MADV_SEQUENTIAL. Secondly, it would be fairly easy to detect sequential behavior automatically. Right now, there are much bigger fish to fry!!! :-) (The reason that it is in the FS dependent code, is that it is only optional that one uses the cluster read ahead code on a per filesystem basis.) It is likely that the FFS dependent VOP_GETPAGES code will work with other filesystem types (perhaps with minor mods.) John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705161426.JAA01426>