[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46305894.3050403@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:45:24 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
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
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
I'm not just making this up. Fragmentation. OK?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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