[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110711230209.GA39196@Xye>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:32:09 +0530
From: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@...hang.net>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re. Revised [PATCH 3/3] mm/readahead: Remove the check for
ra->ra_pages
* On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:59:06AM -0700, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:59:09PM +0800, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
>> * On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 01:53:08PM -0700, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>> >On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:41:20AM +0800, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
>> >>page_cache_sync_readahead checks for ra->ra_pages again, so moving the check after VM_SequentialReadHint.
>> >NAK. This patch adds nothing but overheads.
>> >>--- a/mm/filemap.c
>> >>+++ b/mm/filemap.c
>> >>@@ -1566,8 +1566,6 @@ static void do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> >> /* If we don't want any read-ahead, don't bother */
>> >> if (VM_RandomReadHint(vma))
>> >> return;
>> >>- if (!ra->ra_pages)
>> >>- return;
>> >> if (VM_SequentialReadHint(vma)) {
>> >> page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, ra, file, offset,
>> >>@@ -1575,6 +1573,9 @@ static void do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> >> return;
>> >> }
>> >>+ if (!ra->ra_pages)
>> >>+ return;
>> >>+
>> >page_cache_sync_readahead() has the same
>> > if (!ra->ra_pages)
>> > return;
>> 1. Yes, I saw that and that is why I moved it after the condition, so that duplicate checks are
>> not needed -- ie., if VM_SequentialReadHint is true, then
>> (!ra->ra_pages) is checked twice otherwise.
>
>Ok, I see.
>
>> 2. Also, another thought, is the check needed at its original place (if
>> not it can be removed), reasons being -- filesystems like tmpfs which
>> have ra_pages set to 0 don't use filemap_fault in their VMA ops and also
>
>Good point. tmpfs is using shmem_fault().. Can you remove the test?
I have removed that test. Patch attached.
>
>> do_sync_mmap_readahead is called in a major page fault context.
>
>Right. This is irrelevant however, because if pa_pages==0, the
>page faults will normally be major ones.
>
>Thanks,
>Fengguang
>
>> >So the patch adds the call into page_cache_sync_readahead() just to return..
>> >Thanks,
>> >Fengguang
>> --------------------------
>> Raghavendra Prabhu
>> GPG Id : 0xD72BE977
>> Fingerprint: B93F EBCB 8E05 7039 CD3C A4B8 A616 DCA1 D72B E977
>> www: wnohang.net
>
>
======================================================================
The check for ra->ra_pages is not required since fs like tmpfs which have
ra_pages set to 0 don't use filemap_fault as part of their VMA ops (it uses
shmem_fault). Also, page_cache_sync_readahead does its own check for ra_pages.
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@...hang.net>
---
mm/filemap.c | 2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index 074c23d..0bcd276 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -1566,8 +1566,6 @@ static void do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
/* If we don't want any read-ahead, don't bother */
if (VM_RandomReadHint(vma))
return;
- if (!ra->ra_pages)
- return;
if (VM_SequentialReadHint(vma)) {
page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, ra, file, offset,
--
1.7.6
--------------------------
Raghavendra Prabhu
GPG Id : 0xD72BE977
Fingerprint: B93F EBCB 8E05 7039 CD3C A4B8 A616 DCA1 D72B E977
www: wnohang.net
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists