![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Matthew Hawkins wrote: > On 7/25/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> Not to say that neither fix some problems, but for such conceptually >> big changes, it should take a little more effort than a constructed test >> case and no consideration of the alternatives to get it merged. > > > Swap Prefetch has existed since September 5, 2005. Please Nick, > enlighten us all with your "alternatives" which have been offered (in > practical, not theoretical form) in the past 23 months, along with > their non-constructed benchmarks proving their case and the hordes of > happy users and kernel developers who have tested them out the wazoo > and given their backing. Or just take a nice steaming jug of STFU. The alternatives comment was in relation to the readahead based drop behind patch,for which an alternative would be improving use-once, possibly in the way I described. As for swap prefetch, I don't know, I'm not in charge of it being merged or not merged. I do know some people have reported that their updatedb problem gets much better with swap prefetch turned on, and I am trying to work on that too. For you? You also have the alternative to help improve things yourself, and you can modify your own kernel. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-07-25 08:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||