Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 01:31:05 EST
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> By misunderstanding any suggestions, misrepresenting them, making incorrect
> statements about them, by not suggesting any alternatives yourself, all of
> it buttressed by a stolid refusal to recognise that this patch has any
That was even mentioned in the initial post.... Definitely it would
require significant changes but getting there is fairly straightforward
with the use of compound pages.
> This effectively leaves it up to others to find time to think about and to
> implement possible alternative solutions to the problems which you're
They are working on other problems like radix tree scalability it seems.
> The altenative which is on the table (and there may be others) is
> populating pagecache with physically contiguous pages. This will fix the
> HBA problem and is much less costly in terms of maintenance and will
> improve all workloads on all machines and doesn't have the additional
> runtime costs of pagecache wastage and more memset() overhead with small
> files and it doesn't require administrator intervention.
> OTOH (yes! there are tradeoffs!) it will consume an unknown amount more
> CPU and it doesn't address the large-fs-blocksize requirement, but I don't
> know how important the latter is and given the unrelenting advocacy storm
> coming from the SGI direction I don't know how to find that out, frankly.
This is certainly a nice approach if it works and may address one
issue that motivated this patchset but it does not address all.
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/