Re: [PATCH v3 0/5]add new ioctls to do metadata readahead in btrfs
From: Shaohua Li <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-20 02:34:18
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 04:34 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:15:15 +0800 Shaohua Li [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
We have file readahead to do asyn file read, but has no metadata readahead. For a list of files, their metadata is stored in fragmented disk space and metadata read is a sync operation, which impacts the efficiency of readahead much. The patches try to add meatadata readahead for btrfs. It has two advantages. One is make metadata read async, the other is significant reducing disk I/O seek. In btrfs, metadata is stored in btree_inode. Ideally, if we could hook the inode to a fd so we could use existing syscalls (readahead, mincore or upcoming fincore) to do readahead, but the inode is hidden, there is no easy way for this from my understanding. Another problem is we need check page referenced bit to make sure if a page is valid, which isn't ok doing this in fincore/mincore. And in metadata readahead, filesystem need specific checking like the patch4. Doing the checking in current API (for example fadvise) will mess things too. So we add two ioctls for this. One is like readahead syscall, the other is like micore/fincore syscall.Has anyone looked at implementing this for filesystems other than btrfs? Have the ext4 guys taken a look? Did they see any impediments to implementing it for ext4?
Not yet. I do expect ext4 guys can check it. From my understanding, it should be relatively easy to do it in ext filesystems.
quoted
Under a harddisk based netbook with Meego, the metadata readahead reduced about 3.5s boot time in average from total 16s.That's a respectable speedup. And it *needs* to be a good speedup, given how hacky all of this is! But then.. reducing bootup time on a laptop/desktop/server by 3.5s isn't exactly a world-shattering benefit, is it? Is it worth all the hacky code?
a laptop/desktop/server need read more data from hard disks, this will give more bootup time saving I think, though not tested yet.
It would be much more valuable if those 3.5 seconds were available to devices which really really care about bootup times, but very few of those devices use rotating disks nowadays, I expect?
Currently most popular netbooks are using rotating disks actually. And this will benefit laptop/desktop too. Thanks, Shaohua