From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261672AbUEFGnM (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:43:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261718AbUEFGnM (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:43:12 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:60560 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261672AbUEFGnK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:43:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 08:43:01 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton Cc: kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Cache queue_congestion_on/off_threshold Message-ID: <20040506064301.GC10069@suse.de> References: <200405052212.i45MC0F28121@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20040506062028.GB10069@suse.de> <20040505233426.704926da.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040505233426.704926da.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 05 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Do you have any numbers at all for this? I'd say these calculations are > > severly into the noise area when submitting io. > > The difference will not be measurable, but I think the patch makes sense > regardless of what the numbers say. Humm dunno, I'd rather save the sizeof(int) * 2. > I uninlined the new function though. Two callsites, both slowpath... The more reason not to make it static :). I don't feel too strongly about it though. -- Jens Axboe