From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of empty numa node
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <529EF0FB.2050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204004125.a06f7dfc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of empty numa node
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <529EF0FB.2050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204004125.a06f7dfc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-05 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-03 10:36 [PATCH RFC] mm readahead: Fix the readahead fail in case of empty numa node Raghavendra K T
2013-12-03 10:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-03 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-03 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04 8:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-04 8:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-04 8:41 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04 8:41 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04 9:08 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2013-12-04 9:08 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-04 21:48 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04 21:48 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-05 5:57 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-05 5:57 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-11 22:49 ` Jan Kara
2013-12-11 22:49 ` Jan Kara
2013-12-11 23:05 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-11 23:05 ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-12 11:14 ` Jan Kara
2013-12-12 11:14 ` Jan Kara
2013-12-14 0:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-14 0:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-31 11:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-12-31 11:07 ` Raghavendra K T
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=529EF0FB.2050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=damien.ramonda@intel.com \
--cc=david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.