> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think the best way to proceed would be to investigate that _general_
> > optimisation and then, based upon the results of that work, decide whether
> > further _specialised_ changes such as variable PAGE_CACHE_SIZE are needed,
> > and if so, what they should be.
>
> As has been pointed out performance is only one beneficial issue of
> having a higher page cache. It is doubtful in principle that the proposed
> alternative can work given that locking overhead and management overhead
> by the VM are not minimized but made more complex by your envisioned
> solution.
Why do we have to replay all of this?
You: conceptully-new add-on which benefits 0.25% of the user base, provided
they select the right config options and filesystem.
Me: simpler enhancement which benefits 100% of the user base (ie: includes
4k blocksize, 4k pagesize) and which also fixes your performance problem
with that HBA.
We want the 100% case.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
