[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529EF0FB.2050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of empty
numa node
On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfaortunately, from my search, I saw that the code belonged to pre git
>> time, so could not get much information on that.
>
> Here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/20/242
>
> It seems it was done as a rather thoughtless performance optimisation.
> I'd say it's time to reimplement max_sane_readahead() from scratch.
>
Ok. Thanks for the link. I think after that,
Here it was changed to pernode:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/21/9 to avoid iteration all over.
do you think above patch (+comments) with some sanitized nr (thus
avoiding iteration over nodes in remote numa readahead case) does look
better?
or should we iterate all memory.
--
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