| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100407081351.GA20322@localhost> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:13:51 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> Cc: Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Downsides to madvise/fadvise(willneed) for application startup Minchan, > A few month ago, I saw your patch about enhancing readahead. > At that time, many guys tested several size of USB and SSD which are > consist of nand device. > The result is good if we does readahead untile some crossover point. > So I think we need readahead about file I/O in non-rotation device, too. > > But startup latency is important than file I/O performance in some machine. > With analysis at that time, code readahead of application affected slow startup. > In addition, during bootup, cache hit ratio was very small. > > So I hoped we can disable readahead just only code section(ie, roughly > exec vma's filemap fault). :) > > I don't want you to solve this problem right now. > Just let you understand embedded system's some problem > for enhancing readahead in future. :) Yeah, I've never heard of such a demand, definitely good to know it! Thanks, Fengguang -- 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