Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264305AbTE0WYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 18:24:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264312AbTE0WYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 18:24:20 -0400 Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:64641 "EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264305AbTE0WYS (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 18:24:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:38:00 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Andrew Morton Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, m.c.p@wolk-project.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net, manish@storadinc.com, christian.klose@freenet.de, wli@holomorphy.com Subject: Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... Message-ID: <20030527223800.GC1453@dualathlon.random> References: <3ED2DE86.2070406@storadinc.com> <200305271952.34843.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> <200305272004.02376.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> <20030527182547.GG3767@dualathlon.random> <20030527200339.GI3767@dualathlon.random> <20030527202520.GN3767@dualathlon.random> <20030527151830.40b3d281.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030527151830.40b3d281.akpm@digeo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1171 Lines: 26 On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > However the last numbers from Randy showed my tree going faster than 2.5 > > with bonnie and tiotest so I think we don't need to worry and I would > > probably not fix it in a different way in 2.4 even if it would mean a 1% > > degradation. > > That could be because -aa quadruples the size of the VM readahead window. > > Changes such as that should be removed when assessing the performance > impact of this particular patch. I understand that was a generic benchmark against 2.5, not meant to evaluate the effect of the fixed readahead (see the name of the patch "readahead-got-broken-somehwere"). I don't see any good reason why should Randy cripple down my tree before benchmarking against 2.5? if something it's ok to apply some of my patches to 2.5, that's great, the other way around not IMHO. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/