Re: mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1

Matthias Urlichs (smurf@noris.de)
15 Dec 1998 07:39:57 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Jochen Heuer: "Re: [2.1.131-ac10] Oops and more lockups"
Previous message: Muthu: "Re: Sharing page tables for shared memory"
Maybe in reply to: Simon Kirby: "mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1"
Next in thread: Stefan Monnier: "Re: mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1"

"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com> writes:
> It will be pretty simple to add a soft-page-fault fencepost to the page
> cache to allow us to prime the next readahead chunk before we have
> finished accessing the current one in the case of sequential access,
> which will allow us to sustain even faster sequential IO rates on fast
> disks.
>
Do it. I'd like to find out if that makes a difference. (I think it would.)

-- Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | smurf@noris.de | ICQ: 20193661

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Jochen Heuer: "Re: [2.1.131-ac10] Oops and more lockups"
Previous message: Muthu: "Re: Sharing page tables for shared memory"
Maybe in reply to: Simon Kirby: "mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1"
Next in thread: Stefan Monnier: "Re: mmap() is slower than read() on SCSI/IDE on 2.0 and 2.1"