From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dax.scot.redhat.com (sct@dax.scot.redhat.com [195.89.149.242]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA10353 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:12:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:58:00 GMT Message-Id: <199812091158.LAA01234@dax.scot.redhat.com> From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PATCH] swapin readahead and fixes In-Reply-To: <199812090241.LAA15658@fireball.otsd.ts.fujitsu.co.jp> References: <199812090241.LAA15658@fireball.otsd.ts.fujitsu.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Drago Goricanec Cc: H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl, Billy.Harvey@thrillseeker.net, sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu List-ID: Hi, On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:41:52 +0900, Drago Goricanec said: >> If we write this way (no more expensive than normal because >> we write the stuff in one disk movement) swapin readahead >> will be much more effective and performance will increase. > Except for disk I/O bound processes, where the swapout writeahead > steals some extra time from the disk. Not necessarily: having to do extra seeks hurts the throughput MUCH more than doing a bit more IO when the disk head is already in position. > I guess this is where having separate swap and data disks would > help. That is _always_ a good idea, anyway. --Stephen -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org