From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:16:54 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41544876.4040302@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41543FE2.5040807@austin.ibm.com>
Steven Pratt wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> would like to offer up an alternative simplified design which will
>>> not only make the code easier to maintain,
>>>
>>
>>
>> We won't know that until all functionality is in place.
>>
>>
> Ok, but both you and Nick indicated that the queue congestion isn't
> needed,
I would have thought that always doing the readahead would provide a
more graceful degradation, assuming the readahead algorithm is fairly
accurate, and copes with things like readahead thrashing (which we
hope is the case).
>> I do think we should skip the I/O for POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED against a
>> congested queue. I can't immediately think of a good reason for skipping
>> the I/O for normal readahead.
>>
I don't see why you should skip the readahead for FADVISE_WILLNEED
either. Presumably if someone needs this, they really need it. We
should aim for optimal behaviour when the apis are being used correctly...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-24 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-23 16:06 [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead Steven Pratt
2004-09-23 22:14 ` Joel Schopp
2004-09-24 0:21 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-24 2:42 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-24 15:40 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 16:16 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-09-24 16:48 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-24 22:43 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-24 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-27 15:39 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 19:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-28 10:13 ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-24 22:55 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 20:29 ` Ray Bryant
2004-09-27 21:04 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-25 0:45 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-25 1:01 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-25 6:07 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-27 15:30 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-27 18:42 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-27 20:07 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-29 18:46 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-29 22:33 ` Steven Pratt
2004-09-29 23:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2004-09-30 2:26 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-30 5:29 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-30 20:20 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-09-30 1:12 ` Ram Pai
2004-10-01 21:02 ` Steven Pratt
2004-10-05 17:52 ` Ram Pai
[not found] <372479081@toto.iv>
2004-09-24 5:00 ` Peter Chubb
2004-09-24 22:57 ` Steven Pratt
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=41544876.4040302@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slpratt@austin.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox