On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 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.
The value IS the maximum read-ahead value, not an enforced minimum.
However, there's definitely room for improvement in the queue feedback.
Even for seekless devices like SSD, read-ahead may be beneficial due to
zero request -> request latency.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
