Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...

[Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)]

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/