RE: [rfc] lockless pagecache

[Chen, Kenneth W]

Nick Piggin wrote on Monday, June 27, 2005 2:04 AM
> >> However I think for Oracle and others that use shared memory like
> >> this, they are probably not doing linear access, so that would be a
> >> net loss. I'm not completely sure (I don't have access to real loads
> >> at the moment), but I would have thought those guys would have looked
> >> into fault ahead if it were a possibility.
> > 
> > 
> > i thought those guys used O_DIRECT - in which case, wouldn't the page 
> > cache not be used?
> > 
> 
> Well I think they do use O_DIRECT for their IO, but they need to
> use the Linux pagecache for their shared memory - that shared
> memory being the basis for their page cache. I think. Whatever
> the setup I believe they have issues with the tree_lock, which is
> why it was changed to an rwlock.

Typically shared memory is used as db buffer cache, and O_DIRECT is
performed on these buffer cache (hence O_DIRECT on the shared memory).
You must be thinking some other workload.  Nevertheless, for OLTP type
of db workload, tree_lock hasn't been a problem so far.

- Ken

-
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/