On Tue 05-11-13 18:02:03, Gu Zheng wrote: > Stop the loop of iterating bh if we have confirmed page > has dirty and writeback buffers. Thanks for the patch. What I'm somewhat missing here is a motivation of the patch. For the common case where blocksize == pagesize this is a noop (only adds some code). For the case where blocksize < pagesize we can possibly save checking some buffers but how common is that going be? Does that minimal speed up outweight the cost of additional check / code complication? Honza > > Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/buffer.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c > index 6024877..519cc5c 100644 > --- a/fs/buffer.c > +++ b/fs/buffer.c > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ void buffer_check_dirty_writeback(struct page *page, > *dirty = true; > > bh = bh->b_this_page; > - } while (bh != head); > + } while ((bh != head) && !(*writeback && *dirty)); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(buffer_check_dirty_writeback); > > -- > 1.7.7 > > -- > 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 -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
