On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:03:39PM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
>
>
> > read_pages
> > for(page_idx ...) {
> > if (!add_to_page_cache_lru)) { <-- 1)
> > mapping->a_ops->readpage(filp, page)
> > squashfs_readpage
> > for (i ...) { 2) Here, 31 pages are inserted into
> read_pages
> for(page_idx ...) {
> if (!add_to_page_cache_lru)) { <-- 1)
> mapping->a_ops->readpage(filp, page)
> squashfs_readpage
> for (i ...) { 2) Here, 31 pages are inserted into page cache
> grab_cahe_page_nowait <--/
>
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:05:51AM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
>
> > Please don't break thread.
> > You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
> Sorry, It seems to be my mailer issue. I'm trying to fix it.
>
> > It's a result which isn't what I want to know.
> > What I wnat to know
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:05:51AM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
Please don't break thread.
You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
Sorry, It seems to be my mailer issue. I'm trying to fix it.
It's a result which isn't what I want to know.
What I wnat to know is why
read_pages
for(page_idx ...) {
if (!add_to_page_cache_lru)) { -- 1)
mapping-a_ops-readpage(filp, page)
squashfs_readpage
for (i ...) { 2) Here, 31 pages are inserted into page cache
grab_cahe_page_nowait --/
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:03:39PM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
read_pages
for(page_idx ...) {
if (!add_to_page_cache_lru)) { -- 1)
mapping-a_ops-readpage(filp, page)
squashfs_readpage
for (i ...) { 2) Here, 31 pages are inserted into page cache
> Please don't break thread.
> You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
Sorry, It seems to be my mailer issue. I'm trying to fix it.
> It's a result which isn't what I want to know.
> What I wnat to know is why upper layer issues more I/O per second.
> For example, you read 32K
Please don't break thread.
You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
Sorry, It seems to be my mailer issue. I'm trying to fix it.
It's a result which isn't what I want to know.
What I wnat to know is why upper layer issues more I/O per second.
For example, you read 32K so
Hello,
Please don't break thread.
You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
>
> > I did test it on x86 with USB stick and ARM with eMMC on my Nexus 4.
> > In experiment, I couldn't see much gain like you both system
> I did test it on x86 with USB stick and ARM with eMMC on my Nexus 4.
> In experiment, I couldn't see much gain like you both system and even it
> was regressed at bs=32k test, maybe workqueue allocation/schedule of work
> per I/O.
> Your test is rather special or what I am missing?
Can you
I did test it on x86 with USB stick and ARM with eMMC on my Nexus 4.
In experiment, I couldn't see much gain like you both system and even it
was regressed at bs=32k test, maybe workqueue allocation/schedule of work
per I/O.
Your test is rather special or what I am missing?
Can you specify
Hello,
Please don't break thread.
You should reply to my mail instead of your original post.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
I did test it on x86 with USB stick and ARM with eMMC on my Nexus 4.
In experiment, I couldn't see much gain like you both system and
12 matches
Mail list logo
