linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of empty numa node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:41:25 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of
 empty numa node

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > I don't recall the rationale for the current code and of course we
> > didn't document it.  It might be in the changelogs somewhere - could
> > you please do the git digging and see if you can find out?
> 
> Unfaortunately, from my search, I saw that the code belonged to pre git
> time, so could not get much information on that.

Here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/20/242

It seems it was done as a rather thoughtless performance optimisation. 
I'd say it's time to reimplement max_sane_readahead() from scratch.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/