On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 02:21:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It would be nice if the Linux guys would fix this problem for us, but
> I'm not sure whether they will. For those who may be curious, the
> problem is in generic_file_llseek() in fs/read-write.c. On a platform
> with 8-byte atomic reads, it seems like it ought to be very possible
> to read inode->i_size without taking a spinlock.
Interesting. There's this thread from 2003 suggesting the use of pread
instead, it was rejected on the argument that lseek is cheap so not a
Perhaps we now have a benchmark where the effect can be measured.
There's the issue about whether it screws up the readahead mechanism...
Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2011-08-03 18:41:56|
|Subject: Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API|
|Previous:||From: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz||Date: 2011-08-03 18:28:19|
|Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings|