Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * fscache_note_page_release - Note that a netfs page got released
> > + * @cookie: The cookie corresponding to the file
> > + *
> > + * Note that a page that has been copied to the cache has been released. This
> > + * means that future reads will need to look in the cache to see if it's there.
> > + */
> > +static inline
> > +void fscache_note_page_release(struct fscache_cookie *cookie)
> > +{
> > + if (cookie &&
> > + test_bit(FSCACHE_COOKIE_HAVE_DATA, &cookie->flags) &&
> > + test_bit(FSCACHE_COOKIE_NO_DATA_TO_READ, &cookie->flags))
> > + clear_bit(FSCACHE_COOKIE_NO_DATA_TO_READ, &cookie->flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif /* _LINUX_FSCACHE_H */
> >
> >
>
> Is this logic correct?
>
> FSCACHE_COOKIE_HAVE_DATA gets set in cachefiles_write_complete, but will
> that ever be called on a cookie that has no data? Will we ever call
> cachefiles_write at all when there is no data to be written?
FSCACHE_COOKIE_NO_DATA_TO_READ is set if we have no data in the cache yet
(ie. the backing file lookup was negative, the file is 0 length or the cookie
got invalidated). It means that we have no data in the cache, not that the
file is necessarily empty on the server.
FSCACHE_COOKIE_HAVE_DATA is set once we've stored data in the backing file.
>From that point on, we have data we *could* read - however, it's covered by
pages in the netfs pagecache until at such time one of those covering pages is
released.
So if we've written data to the cache (HAVE_DATA) and there wasn't any data in
the cache when we started (NO_DATA_TO_READ), it may no longer be true that we
can skip reading from the cache.
Read skipping is done by cachefiles_prepare_read().
Note that I'm not doing tracking on a per-page basis, but only on a per-file
basis.
David
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
