From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:07:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:07:07 -0500 Received: from d185fcbd7.rochester.rr.com ([24.95.203.215]:786 "EHLO d185fcbd7.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:06:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:35:33 -0500 From: Chris Mason To: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] changes to buffer.c (was Test12 ll_rw_block error) Message-ID: <16230000.977513733@coffee> In-Reply-To: <3A438545.2D9998AE@innominate.de> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.6b1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, December 22, 2000 17:45:57 +0100 Daniel Phillips wrote: [ flushing a page at a time in bdflush ] > Um. Why cater to the uncommon case of 1K blocks? Just let > bdflush/kupdated deal with them in the normal way - it's pretty > efficient. Only try to do the clustering optimization when buffer size > matches memory page size. > This isn't really an attempt at a clustering optimization. The problem at hand is that buffer cache buffers can be on relatively random pages. So, a page might have buffers that are very far apart, where one needs flushing and the other doesn't. In the blocksize == page size case, this won't happen, and we don't lose any speed over the existing code. In the blocksize < pagesize case, my new code is slower, so my goal is to fix just that problem. Real write clustering would be a different issue entirely, and is worth doing ;-) -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/