Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:48:27 -0500 | From | Steven Pratt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Steven Pratt wrote: > >> Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> would like to offer up an alternative simplified design which will >>>> not only make the code easier to maintain, >>>> >>> >>> >>> We won't know that until all functionality is in place. >>> >> >> Ok, but both you and Nick indicated that the queue congestion isn't >> needed, > > I would have thought that always doing the readahead would provide a > more graceful degradation, assuming the readahead algorithm is fairly > accurate, and copes with things like readahead thrashing (which we > hope is the case).
Yes, that is exactly my thought. I think this is what the new code does.
> >>> I do think we should skip the I/O for POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED against a >>> congested queue. I can't immediately think of a good reason for >>> skipping >>> the I/O for normal readahead. >>> >> > > I don't see why you should skip the readahead for FADVISE_WILLNEED > either. Presumably if someone needs this, they really need it. We > should aim for optimal behaviour when the apis are being used > correctly...
Ok, great, since this is what it does.
Thanks, Steve
- 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/
| |