[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070712144449.GZ31489@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:44:49 +1000
From: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: CONFIG_PAGE_SHIFT (aka software PAGE_SIZE)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:14:36PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:12:56AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > I need really large filesystems that contain both small and large files to
> > work more efficiently on small boxes where we can't throw endless amounts of
> > RAM and CPUs at the problem. Hence things like 64k page size are just not an
> > option because of the wastage that it entails.
>
> I didn't know you were allocating 4k pages for the small files and 64k
> for the large ones in the same fs. That sounds quite a bit
> overkill.
We already have rudimentary multi-block size support via the
per-inode extent size hint, but we still cache based on the
filesystem block size ('coz we can't increase it).
All I want is to be able to change the index granularity in the page
cache with minimal impact and everything in XFS falls almost
straight out in a pretty optimal manner.
> I still think you should run those systems with PAGE_SIZE 64k even if
> it'll waste you more memory on the small files.
That's crap. Just because a machine has lots of memory does not
make it OK to waste lots of memory.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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