Re: mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1

Chris Wedgwood (cw@ix.net.nz)
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:42:28 +1300


On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 08:58:41PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

> It will be pretty simple to add a soft-page-fault fencepost to the
> page cache to allow us to prime the next readahead chunk before we
> have finished accessing the current one in the case of sequential
> access, which will allow us to sustain even faster sequential IO
> rates on fast disks.

But doesn't this assume we'll sequentially access mmap regions?

I though the whole idea of madvise was to tell the OS what kind of
access we're likely to make to a region.

I really don't fully understand why madvise is a bad thing, I don't
see how the OS can possibly know better than the application about
future access patterns....

-cw

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