On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:54:11 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Introduce ra.offset and store in it an offset where the previous read ended.
> This way
> we can detect whether reads are really sequential (and thus we should not
> mark the page
> as accessed repeatedly) or whether they are random and just happen to be in
> the same page
> (and the page should really be marked accessed again).
(less columns, please)
OK. So prev_page and prev_offset are now a complexified representation of a
loff_t, no?
So why don't we just use a loff_t for this?
Anyway, the asymmetry in our handling of prev_index (sometimes called
prev_page!) and prev_offset is unpleasing. This:
--- a/mm/filemap.c~readahead-improve-heuristic-detecting-sequential-reads-tidy
+++ a/mm/filemap.c
@@ -933,6 +933,7 @@ page_ok:
if (prev_index != index || offset != prev_offset)
mark_page_accessed(page);
prev_index = index;
+ prev_offset = ra.offset = offset;
/*
* Ok, we have the page, and it's up-to-date, so
@@ -948,7 +949,6 @@ page_ok:
offset += ret;
index += offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
offset &= ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
- prev_offset = ra.offset = offset;
page_cache_release(page);
if (ret == nr && desc->count)
improves things somewhat. But I think it would be nicer if their handling
was unified, or at least consistent. We update ra.offset here, and we
update ra.prev_page over there.
And shouldn't offset be called prev_offset? Or should prev_page be called
page? Or index? Or prev_index? Or Marmaduke? The naming is all a mess.
Wanna take a look at all of this, please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
