| Subject: | Re: readahead) which is Linux-only vs. posix_fadvise( |
|---|---|
| From: | Jeremy Allison |
| Date: | Thu, 10 May 2007 15:04:25 -0700 |
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:28:26PM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > ons 2007-05-09 klockan 21:35 -0400 skrev derrell@xxxxxxxxx: > > > In researching this, I discovered what appears to be a POSIX replacement. > > It > > looks like readahead is equivalent to posix_fadvise(..., > > POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED). > > Not entirely equivalent. readahead() blocks, while POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED > doesn't.. That's what I meant. I actually want the block in the vfs module, but have to make do with the nonblocking if readahead isn't available. Jeremy. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: readahead() which is Linux-only vs. posix_fadvise(), Henrik Nordstrom |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Windows 2003 CIFS server behaviour question, Murali Bashyam |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: readahead() which is Linux-only vs. posix_fadvise(), Henrik Nordstrom |
| Next by Thread: | Windows 2003 CIFS server behaviour question, Murali Bashyam |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |