[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgHFPZ9tNLLjKZpz@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:41:01 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
gost.dev@...sung.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
mcgrof@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] readahead: rework loop in
page_cache_ra_unbounded()
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:46PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> @@ -239,8 +239,8 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl,
> * not worth getting one just for that.
> */
> read_pages(ractl);
> - ractl->_index++;
> - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1;
> + ractl->_index += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index;
> continue;
> }
>
> @@ -252,13 +252,14 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl,
> folio_put(folio);
> read_pages(ractl);
> ractl->_index++;
> - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1;
> + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index;
> continue;
> }
You changed index++ in the first hunk, but not the second hunk. Is that
intentional?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists