| |||||||||||||
Improving readaheadImproving readaheadPosted Feb 7, 2010 3:36 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Improving readahead by dmag Parent article: Improving readahead
Note that this effect isn't present if the application doesn't have any processing to do.Nope. Two reasons: OK, I did oversimplify when I referred to an application with no processing to do, as that's impossible. To be more precise, I could say to the extent that an application has no processing to do, this overlap effect of readahead doesn't produce any application speedup. There will always be some speedup. When *other* applications have the CPU, the disk could go idle too. Readahead could be still issuing requests on behalf of the app during that time I guess you're talking about time the application is waiting for the CPU, which the readahead overlaps as well. Yes, I missed that. But in an I/O-bound application, this should be negligible, shouldn't it? With decent CPU allocation/scheduling, the process ought to get scheduled really soon after its read completes and keep the CPU until it starts the next one.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||