Wu Fengguang wrote:
Nikanth,
I didn't want to impose artificial restrictions. I think Wu's patch set would
be adding some restrictions, like minimum readahead. He could fix it when he
modifies the patch to include in his patch set.
OK, I imposed a larger bound -- 128MB.
And values 1-4095 (more exactly: PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) are prohibited mainly to
catch "readahead=128" where the user really means to do 128 _KB_ readahead.
Christian, with this patch and more patches to scale down readahead
size on small memory/device size, I guess it's no longer necessary to
introduce a CONFIG_READAHEAD_SIZE?
Yes as I mentioned before a kernel parameter supersedes a config symbol
in my opinion too.
-> agreed
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, System z Linux Performance
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>