On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > +#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4 > +#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL << FAULT_AROUND_ORDER) > +#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) - 1) Looking at the performance data made me think of this: do we really want this to be static? It seems like the kind of thing that will cause a regression _somewhere_. Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
