[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:
> >
> > However the last numbers from Randy showed my tree going faster than 2.5
> > with bonnie and tiotest so I think we don't need to worry and I would
> > probably not fix it in a different way in 2.4 even if it would mean a 1%
> > degradation.
> That could be because -aa quadruples the size of the VM readahead window.
> Changes such as that should be removed when assessing the performance
> impact of this particular patch.

I understand that was a generic benchmark against 2.5, not meant to
evaluate the effect of the fixed readahead (see the name of the patch
"readahead-got-broken-somehwere"). I don't see any good reason why
should Randy cripple down my tree before benchmarking against 2.5? if
something it's ok to apply some of my patches to 2.5, that's great, the
other way around not IMHO.

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 13:35    [W:0.098 / U:1.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site