Andrew,
I have verified the patches against my standard benchmarks
and did not see any bad effects.
Also I have reviewd the patch and it looked clean and correct.
RP
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 11:37, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I think that do_page_cache_readahead() can be inlined
> in blockable_page_cache_readahead(), this makes the
> code a bit more readable in my opinion.
>
> Also makes check_ra_success() static inline.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- 2.6.11-rc5/mm/readahead.c~ 2005-01-29 15:51:04.000000000 +0300
> +++ 2.6.11-rc5/mm/readahead.c 2005-01-29 16:37:05.000000000 +0300
> @@ -348,8 +348,8 @@ int force_page_cache_readahead(struct ad
> * readahead isn't helping.
> *
> */
> -int check_ra_success(struct file_ra_state *ra, unsigned long nr_to_read,
> - unsigned long actual)
> +static inline int check_ra_success(struct file_ra_state *ra,
> + unsigned long nr_to_read, unsigned long actual)
> {
> if (actual == 0) {
> ra->cache_hit += nr_to_read;
> @@ -394,15 +394,11 @@ blockable_page_cache_readahead(struct ad
> {
> int actual;
>
> - if (block) {
> - actual = __do_page_cache_readahead(mapping, filp,
> - offset, nr_to_read);
> - } else {
> - actual = do_page_cache_readahead(mapping, filp,
> - offset, nr_to_read);
> - if (actual == -1)
> - return 0;
> - }
> + if (!block && bdi_read_congested(mapping->backing_dev_info))
> + return 0;
> +
> + actual = __do_page_cache_readahead(mapping, filp, offset, nr_to_read);
> +
> return check_ra_success(ra, nr_to_read, actual);
> }
-
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/
