Re: [PATCH 3/3] readahead: scale max readahead size depending on memory size

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 22 July 2007 18:44:03 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > >  I agree with the low point of 128k.
> > 
> > Perhaps that should be enforced then, because currently a system with
> > <64M will get less.
> 
> I think it should remain the low point.

I believe this whole thing is fundamentally flawed.  The perfect
readahead size depends on the device in question.  If we set a single
system-wide value depending on memory size, it may easily be too small
and too large at the same time.  Think hard disk and SSD.

It may make sense to have a _maximum_ readahead size which depends on
memory size.  But the preferred size (if there is enough RAM) should
depend solely on the device, possibly as a function of the
bandwidth * read latency product.

Jörn

-- 
Joern's library part 12:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
-
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]
  Powered by Linux