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, 6 Apr 2001 13:03:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:03:24 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:47114 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:03:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 19:02:32 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2 times faster rawio and several fixes (2.4.3aa3) Message-ID: <20010406190232.A20258@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010406183440.B28118@athlon.random> <20010406190701.H28118@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010406190701.H28118@athlon.random>; from andrea@suse.de on Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:07:01PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:07:01PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > However we can probably stay with the 512k atomic I/O otherwise the iobuf > structure will grow again of an order of 2. With 512k of atomic I/O the kiovec > structure is just 8756 in size (infact probably I should allocate some of the > structures dynamically instead of statics inside the kiobuf.. as it is now > with my patch it's not very reliable as it needs an allocation of order 2). 8756bytes wastes most of an order 2 allocation. Wouldn't it make more sense to round it up to 16k to use the four pages fully ? (if the increased atomic size doesn't have other bad effects -- i guess it's no problem anymore to lock down that much memory?) -Andi