On 12/14/2013 06:09 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
But I'm really struggling to think up an implementation! The current
code looks only at the caller's node and doesn't seem to make much
sense. Should we look at all nodes? Hard to say without
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>
> But I'm really struggling to think up an implementation! The current
> code looks only at the caller's node and doesn't seem to make much
> sense. Should we look at all nodes? Hard to say without prior
> knowledge of where those pages wi
On Wed 11-12-13 15:05:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:49:17 +0100 Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > - * Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
> > > - * sensible upper limit.
> > > + * max_sane_readahead() is disabled. It can later be removed
> > >
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:49:17 +0100 Jan Kara wrote:
> > /*
> > - * Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
> > - * sensible upper limit.
> > + * max_sane_readahead() is disabled. It can later be removed altogether,
> > but
> > + * let's keep a skeleton in place for n
On Wed 04-12-13 13:48:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530 Raghavendra K T
> wrote:
>
> > On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Unfaortunately, from my search, I saw that the code
On 12/05/2013 03:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
:
: This patch takes it all out and applies the same upper limit as is used in
: sys_readahead() - half the inactive list.
:
: +/*
: + *
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:38:11 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Unfaortunately, from my search, I saw that the code belonged to pre git
> >> time, so could not get much informati
On 12/04/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
Unfaortunately, from my search, I saw that the code belonged to pre git
time, so could not get much information on that.
Here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/20/242
It seems it was done as
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:00:09 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
> > I don't recall the rationale for the current code and of course we
> > didn't document it. It might be in the changelogs somewhere - could
> > you please do the git digging and see if you can find out?
>
> Unfaortunately, from my se
Thank you Andrew.
On 12/04/2013 04:08 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:06:17 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
On a cpu with an empty numa node,
This makes no sense - numa nodes don't reside on CPUs.
I think you mean "on a CPU which resides on a memoryless NUMA node"?
You are
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:06:17 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
> On a cpu with an empty numa node,
This makes no sense - numa nodes don't reside on CPUs.
I think you mean "on a CPU which resides on a memoryless NUMA node"?
> readahead fails because max_sane_readahead
> returns zero. The reason is
11 matches
Mail list logo
