Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267165AbUI0Smz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:42:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266895AbUI0Smz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:42:55 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:30462 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267165AbUI0Sm3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:42:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead From: Ram Pai To: Steven Pratt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <41583225.4040901@austin.ibm.com> References: <41583225.4040901@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1096310537.11845.33.camel@dyn319181.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Sep 2004 11:42:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1657 Lines: 59 On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 08:30, Steven Pratt wrote: > Ram Pai wrote: > > >On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Ram Pai wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Steven Pratt wrote: > >> > >> ..snip.. > >To summarize you noticed 3 problems: > > > >1. page cache hits not handled properly. > >2. readahead thrashing not accounted. > >3. read congestion not accounted. > > > > > Yes. > > >Currently both the patches do not handle all the above cases. > > > > > No, thrashing was handled in the first patch, and both thrashing and > page cache hits are handled in the second. Also, it seems to be the > consensus that on normal I/O ignoring queue congestion is the right > behavior. > > >So if your patch performs much better than the current one, than > >it is the winner anyway. But past experience has shown that some > >benchmark gets a hit for any small change. This happens to be tooo big > >a change. > > > I agree, we need more people to test this. > > > I will fix the 3 problems you discovered in the current code. And lets compare the two results. However you have more features in your patch which will be the differentiating factor between the two versions. 1. exponential increase and decrease of window size 2. overlapped read of current window and readahead window. 3. fixed slow-read path. 4. anything else? The readsize parameter comes in handy to incorporate the the above features. RP - 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/