[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111121112409.GA8895@localhost>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:24:09 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.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 06:00:04PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?
I don't know -- I don't have access to such highend devices.
However the patch changelog has the simple test script. It would be
high appreciated if someone can help collect the data :)
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