From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:37:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:37:04 -0400 Received: from ns.cablesurf.de ([195.206.131.193]:28667 "EHLO ns.cablesurf.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:36:58 -0400 Message-Id: <200108271848.UAA20391@ns.cablesurf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Oliver Neukum To: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: [resent PATCH] Re: very slow parallel read performance Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:37:36 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] In-Reply-To: <3B89F1FC.40F747D4@idb.hist.no> <20010827142441Z16237-32383+1641@humbolt.nl.linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20010827142441Z16237-32383+1641@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > - Readahead cache is naturally a fifo - new chunks of readahead > are added at the head and unused readahead is (eventually) > culled from the tail. do you really want to do this based on pages ? Should you not drop all pages associated with the inode that wasn't touched for the longest time ? If you are streaming dropping all should be no great loss. Regards Oliver