Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:16:54 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |