[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] a few storage topics
- From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang wu gmail com>
- To: Dave Chinner <david fromorbit com>
- Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger dilger ca>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange redhat com>, Jan Kara <jack suse cz>, "linux-scsi vger kernel org" <linux-scsi vger kernel org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer redhat com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch infradead org>, "dm-devel redhat com" <dm-devel redhat com>, Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com>, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh panasas com>, "linux-fsdevel vger kernel org" <linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, "lsf-pc lists linux-foundation org" <lsf-pc lists linux-foundation org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] a few storage topics
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:27:34 +0800
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:34:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:25:56AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:35:52PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > It would also be
> > > > possible to trigger on the size of the device so that the 32MB USB stick
> > > > doesn't sit busy for a minute with readahead that is useless.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I do have a patch for shrinking readahead size based on device size.
> >
> > Should it be a udev rule to change read_ahead_kb on device based on device
> > size, instead of a kernel patch?
>
> That's effectively what vendors like SGI have been doing since udev
> was first introduced, though more often the rules are based on device
> type rather than size. e.g. a 64GB device might be a USB flash drive
> now, but a 40GB device might be a really fast SSD....
Fair enough. I'll drop this kernel policy patch
block: limit default readahead size for small devices
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/19/89
Thanks,
Fengguang
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]