Hi Rusty,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:30:50PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 06:47 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > /*
> > * Track a single file's readahead state
> > + *
> > + * ================#============|==================#==================|
> > + * ^ ^ ^ ^
> > + * file_ra_state.la_index .ra_index .lookahead_index
> > .readahead_index
> > */
> > struct file_ra_state {
> > unsigned long start; /* Current window */
> > @@ -711,6 +715,12 @@ struct file_ra_state {
> > unsigned long prev_index; /* Cache last read() position */
> > unsigned long ahead_start; /* Ahead window */
> > unsigned long ahead_size;
> > +
> > + pgoff_t la_index; /* enqueue time */
> > + pgoff_t ra_index; /* begin offset */
> > + pgoff_t lookahead_index; /* time to do next readahead */
> > + pgoff_t readahead_index; /* end offset */
> > +
>
> I found these variables a little confusing. la_index is the last offset
> passed to ondemand_readahead, so perhaps "last_request_start" is a
> better name? The comment "enqueue time" seems strange, too.
Yes, they are a bit confusing. Sorry for the bad naming and comments!
The precise meanings can be:
la_index - the time (where we are reading) when the readahead window is
established
ra_index - where the readahead window starts
lookahead_index - the time (on reading of which) to push forward the readahead
window
readahead_index - where the readahead window ends, or
where the next readahead should start with
In normal case, when the readahead window is pushed forward, the
following holds:
la_index = lookahead_index; lookahead_index = new-value;
ra_index = readahead_index; readahead_index = new-value;
> ra_index seems ok, although "readahead_start" might be better. Perhaps
> readahead_index should be expressed as readahead_size, which is how it
> seems to be used. Perhaps "lookahead_index" is best expressed as a
> buffer at the end of the readahead zone (readahead_min?).
>
> ie:
> pgoff_t last_request_start; /* start of req which triggered
> readahead */
> pgoff_t readahead_start; /* Where readahead started */
> pgoff_t readahead_size; /* PAGE_CACHE_SIZE units of readahead */
> pgoff_t readahead_min; /* readahead_size left before we recalc
> */
>
> This gets rid of many of the accessors, I think, and avoids introducing
> a new term to understand (lookahead).
Both indexes and sizes will be used in the code. So calculates may
always be necessary somewhere. If there's a good naming scheme, either
form(index/size based) is OK to me :)
In fact, there are two kind of windows and one buffer:
|---------- readahead window ----------->|
===#============|==================#=====================|
|--- reader walking window ---->|--- async buffer --->|
'lookahead' is not a standard term, while 'readahead_min' may be
confusing for some people? Anyway, I'd like to propose two more
possible schemes:
pgoff_t ahead_start; /* readahead window */
pgoff_t ahead_end;
pgoff_t reader_start; /* on read of which the ahead window was
established */
pgoff_t reader_end; /* on read of which the ahead window will be
pushed forward */
or preferably:
pgoff_t start; /* where readahead started */
unsigned long size; /* # of readahead pages */
unsigned long async_size; /* do asynchronous readahead when there
are only # of pages ahead */
unsigned long async_size_old; /* TODO: this one is not needed for now
*/
Any opinions? Thanks.
> > +/*
> > + * Where is the old read-ahead and look-ahead?
> > + */
> > +static inline void ra_set_index(struct file_ra_state *ra,
> > + pgoff_t la_index, pgoff_t ra_index)
> > +{
> > + ra->la_index = la_index;
> > + ra->ra_index = ra_index;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Where is the new read-ahead and look-ahead?
> > + */
> > +static inline void ra_set_size(struct file_ra_state *ra,
> > + unsigned long ra_size, unsigned long la_size)
> > +{
> > + ra->readahead_index = ra->ra_index + ra_size;
> > + ra->lookahead_index = ra->ra_index + ra_size - la_size;
> > +}
>
> These are only called in one place, so I think it's clearer to do this
> there directly. But I see you exported ra_submit, too, even though it's
> only used in the same file. Are there plans for other users?
Yes, if we are to re-introduce the adaptive readahead, the functions
will be reused.
Thank you,
Fengguang
-
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/
