[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260022570.31003@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But I maintain that the end result is better than the fragmentation
> based approach. A lot of people don't actually want a bigger page
> cache size, because they want efficient internal fragmentation as
> well, so your radix-tree based approach isn't really comparable.
Me? Radix tree based approach? That approach is in the kernel. Do not
create a solution where there is no problem. If we do not want to
support large blocksizes then lets be honest and say so instead of
redefining what a block is. The current approach is fine if one is
satisfied with scatter gather and the VM overhead coming with handling
these pages. I fail to see what any of what you are proposing would add to
that.
Lets be clear here: A bigger page cache size if its just one is not
useful. 4k page size is a good size for many files on the system and
chaning it would break the binary format.. I just do not want it to be the
only one because different usage scenarios may require differnet page
sizes for optimal application performance.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists