[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > ...
> > But so little code is actually using READA at this stage that I didn't
> > bother - I first need to go through those paths and make sure that they
> > are in fact complete, working and useful...
> I've done some experiments in the past which have shown that doing this
> will cause us to almost _never_ do readahead on IO intensive workloads,
> which ended up decreasing performance instead increasing it.

Interesting. Thanks.

One _could_ make the first readahead page non-READA, and then
make the rest READA. That way, all block-contiguous requests
will be merged, and any non-contiguous requests will be dropped on
the floor if the request queue is full. Which is probably what
we want to happen anyway.

Of course the alternative is to slot a little bmap() call into
the readhead logic :)

> Please make sure to extensively test the propagation of READA through the
> pagecache when you do so...

Extensivelytest is my middle name.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.055 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site