> I may be wrong, but I don't think the CPU cost of this code matters a > lot. People will rarely turn it on and disk IO is a lot slower than > CPU actions and it's waaaaaaay more important to get high-quality info > about readahead than it is to squeeze out a few CPU cycles. In its current form it would cache line bounce, which tends to be extremly slow. But the solution is probably to make it per CPU. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>