Hi Minchan,
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:20:49PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > --- linux.orig/mm/readahead.c 2010-01-04 12:39:29.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux/mm/readahead.c 2010-01-04 12:39:30.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -501,6 +501,12 @@ void page_cache_sync_readahead(struct ad
> > if (!ra->ra_pages)
> > return;
> >
> > + /* be dumb */
> > + if (filp->f_flags & O_RANDOM) {
> > + force_page_cache_readahead(mapping, filp, offset, req_size);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Let me have a dumb question. :)
>
> How about testing O_RANDOM in front of ra_pages testing?
>
> My intention is that although we turn off ra, it would be better to read
> contiguous block all at once than readpage() callback doing I/O
> one page at a time.
>
> Is it break some semantics or happen some problem in ondemand readahead?
Yes it will have some problem with shrink_readahead_size_eio(), which
want to disable readahead and use ->readpage() when ra_pages==0.
Do you have specific use case in mind? The file systems that set
ra_pages=0 seems to don't need readahead, too.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
