[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150224220843.GL19014@t510.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:08:44 -0500
From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
loberman@...hat.com, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: get back a sensible upper limit
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:56:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch brings back the old behavior of max_sane_readahead()
>
> Yeah no.
>
> There was a reason that code was killed. No way in hell are we
> bringing back the insanities with node memory etc.
>
Would you consider bringing it back, but instead of node memory state,
utilizing global memory state instead?
> Also, we have never actually heard of anything sane that actualyl
> depended on this. Last time this came up it was a made-up benchmark,
> not an actual real load that cared.
>
> Who can possibly care about this in real life?
>
People filing bugs complaining their applications that memory map files
are getting hurt by it.
-- Rafael
--
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