> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the best way to proceed would be to investigate that _general_ > > optimisation and then, based upon the results of that work, decide whether > > further _specialised_ changes such as variable PAGE_CACHE_SIZE are needed, > > and if so, what they should be. > > As has been pointed out performance is only one beneficial issue of > having a higher page cache. It is doubtful in principle that the proposed > alternative can work given that locking overhead and management overhead > by the VM are not minimized but made more complex by your envisioned > solution.
Why do we have to replay all of this? You: conceptully-new add-on which benefits 0.25% of the user base, provided they select the right config options and filesystem. Me: simpler enhancement which benefits 100% of the user base (ie: includes 4k blocksize, 4k pagesize) and which also fixes your performance problem with that HBA. We want the 100% case. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
