lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
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).

>> 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...
-
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: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.186 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site