On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: >> OK, I would like to see them. And also discussions of things like why >> we shouldn't increase PAGE_SIZE instead.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:34:50AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Because 4k is a good page size that is bound to the binary format? Frankly > there is no point in having my text files in large page sizes. However, > when I read a dvd then I may want to transfer 64k chunks or when use my > flash drive I may want to transfer 128k chunks. And yes if a scientific > application needs to do data dump then it should be able to use very high > page sizes (megabytes, gigabytes) to be able to continue its work while > the huge dumps runs at full I/O speed ... It's possible to divorce PAGE_SIZE from the binary formats, though I found it difficult to keep up with the update treadmill. Maybe it's like hch says and I just needed to find more and better API cleanups. I've only not tried to resurrect it because it's too much for me to do on my own. I essentially collapsed under the weight of it and my 2.5.x codebase ended up worse than Katrina as a disaster, which I don't want to repeat and think collaborators or a different project lead from myself are needed to avoid that happening again. It's unclear how much the situation has changed since 32-bit workload feasibility issues have been relegated to ignorable or deliberate "f**k 32-bit" status. The effect is doubtless to make it easier, though to what degree I'm not sure. Anyway, if that's being kicked around as an alternative, it could be said that I have some insight into the issues surrounding it. -- wli - 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/
