Hi,
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 08:40:14AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > I still don't love this 64 (aka random ;) thing:
> > + wait = ((gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)
> > + && (!(nr_dirty % 64)));
>
> Oh, you are right here, but there are two important
> things to keep in mind:
>
> 1) it's not like the algorithm depends on the value being
> 64, you may as well use 16 or 128, it doesn't matter
> (this is the magic number test ... if the algorithm
> DEPENDS on the magic number it's most likely wrong, but
> if the value of the magic number doesn't matter thatm uch
> it may just be right)
Try s/64/1/ and see what happens. By your argument, "1" is as good a
number as any. If the load breaks with that number, then the
algorithm fails the magic number test. If it survives, then,
obviously, you can remove the whole test because it's a noop.
Cheers,
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST