Re: [PATCH] mm readahead: Fix sys_readahead breakage by reverting 2MB limit (bug 79111)

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 07/04/2014 12:23 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Raghavendra K T
> <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, how about something like 256MB? I would be happy to send a patch
>> for that change.
>
> I'd like to see some performance numbers. I know at least Fedora uses
> "readahead()" in the startup scripts, do we have any performance
> numbers for that?
>
> Also, I think 256MB is actually excessive. People still do have really
> slow devices out there. USB-2 is still common, and drives that read at
> 15MB/s are not unusual. Do we really want to do readahead() that can
> take tens of seconds (and *will* take tens of seconds sycnhronously,
> because the IO requests fill up).
>
> So I wouldn't go from 2 to 256. That seems like an excessive jump. I
> was more thinking in the 4-8MB range. But even then, I think we should
> always have technical reasons (ie preferably numbers) for the change,
> not just randomly change it.

Okay. I 'll take some time to do the analysis. I think we also should
keep in mind of possible remote readahead that would cause unnecessary
penalty.





--
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>