From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:41:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:41:00 -0400 Received: from islay.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de ([129.13.162.92]:10672 "EHLO mailout.plan9.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:40:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:41:00 +0200 From: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Daniel Phillips , Roger Larsson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [resent PATCH] Re: very slow parallel read performance Message-ID: <20010825184100.M773@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: Rik van Riel , Daniel Phillips , Roger Larsson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010825182815.K773@cerebro.laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.4.8-ac8 (root@cerebro) (gcc version 3.0.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:34:36PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > That wouldn't have made a big difference in this case, except that > one process doing readahead window thrashing with its own readahead > data would have fallen over even worse ... I don't know that case, but in my case, one process thrashing it's read-ahead window is twice as fats as 16 processes doing so ;) I wother wether these problems can be fixed at all, with all these different situations where the vm behaves totally different in (seemingly) similar cases. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |