Thanks a lot! Folks! Your reply addressed my concern.
Now I want to explain the problem that leads me to explore the Linux disk cache management. This is actually from my project. In a file system I am working on, two files may have different inodes, but share the same data blocks. Of course additional block-level reference counting and copy-on-write mechanisms are needed to prevent operations on one file from disrupting the other file. But the point is, the two files share the same data blocks. I hope that consequential reads to the two files can benefit from disk cache, since they have the same data blocks. But I noticed that Linux splits disk buffer cache into many small parts and associate a file's data with its mapping object. Linux determines whether a data page is cached or not by lookup the file's mapping radix tree. So this is a per-file radix tree. This design obviously makes each tree smaller and faster to look up. But this design eliminates the possibility of sharing disk cache across two files. For example, if a process reads file 2 right after file 1 (both file 1 and 2 share the same data block set). Even if the data blocks are already loaded in memory, but they can only be located via file 1's mapping object. When Linux reads file 2, it still think the data is not present in memory. So the process still needs to load the data from disk again. Would it make sense to build a per-device radix tree indexed by (dev, sect_no)? The loaded data pages can still be associated with a per-file radix tree in the file's mapping object, but it is also associated with the per-device radix tree. When looking up cached pages, Linux can first check the per-file radix tree. The per-device radix tree is checked only if Linux fails to find a cached page in the per-file radix tree. The lookup of the per-device radix tree may incur some overhead. But compared to the slow disk access, looking up an in-memory radix tree is much cheaper and should be trivial, I guess. Any thought about this? Thanks, -x On 3/28/07, Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 02:45 -0400, Xin Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > If a Linux process opens and reads a file A, then it closes the file. > Will Linux keep the file A's data in cache for a while in case another > process opens and reads the same in a short time? I think that is what > I heard before. Yes. > But after I digged into the kernel code, I am confused. > > When a process closes the file A, iput() will be called, which in turn > calls the follows two functions: > iput_final()->generic_drop_inode() A comment from the top of fs/dcache.c: /* * Notes on the allocation strategy: * * The dcache is a master of the icache - whenever a dcache entry * exists, the inode will always exist. "iput()" is done either when * the dcache entry is deleted or garbage collected. */ Basically, as long a a dentry is present, iput_final won't be called on the inode. > But from the following calling chain, we can see that file close will > eventually lead to evict and free all cached pages. Actually in > truncate_complete_page(), the pages will be freed. This seems to > imply that Linux has to re-read the same data from disk even if > another process B read the same file right after process A closes the > file. That does not make sense to me. > > /***calling chain ***/ > generic_delete_inode/generic_forget_inode()-> > truncate_inode_pages()->truncate_inode_pages_range()-> > truncate_complete_page()->remove_from_page_cache()-> > __remove_from_page_cache()->radix_tree_delete() > > Am I missing something? Can someone please provide some advise? > > Thanks a lot > -x Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
