[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111121100004.GB5084@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:00:04 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] block: limit default readahead size for small devices
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 05:18:20PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> This looks reasonable: smaller device tend to be slower (USB sticks as
> well as micro/mobile/old hard disks).
>
> Given that the non-rotational attribute is not always reported, we can
> take disk size as a max readahead size hint. This patch uses a formula
> that generates the following concrete limits:
Given that you mentioned the rotational flag and device size in this
mail, as well as benchmarking with an intel SSD - did you measure
how useful large read ahead sizes still are with highend Flash device
that have extremly high read IOP rates?
--
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