On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:57:36AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 04:08:24PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:45:45AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Move the declaration of 'page' to inside the loop and move the 'kick
> > > off a fresh batch' code to the end of the function for easier use in
> > > subsequent patches.
> >
> > Stale? the "kick off" code is moved to the tail of the loop, not the
> > end of the function.
>
> Braino; I meant to write end of the loop.
>
> > > @@ -183,14 +183,14 @@ void __do_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > page = xa_load(&mapping->i_pages, page_offset);
> > > if (page && !xa_is_value(page)) {
> > > /*
> > > - * Page already present? Kick off the current batch of
> > > - * contiguous pages before continuing with the next
> > > - * batch.
> > > + * Page already present? Kick off the current batch
> > > + * of contiguous pages before continuing with the
> > > + * next batch. This page may be the one we would
> > > + * have intended to mark as Readahead, but we don't
> > > + * have a stable reference to this page, and it's
> > > + * not worth getting one just for that.
> > > */
> > > - if (readahead_count(&rac))
> > > - read_pages(&rac, &page_pool, gfp_mask);
> > > - rac._nr_pages = 0;
> > > - continue;
> > > + goto read;
> > > }
> > >
> > > page = __page_cache_alloc(gfp_mask);
> > > @@ -201,6 +201,11 @@ void __do_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > if (page_idx == nr_to_read - lookahead_size)
> > > SetPageReadahead(page);
> > > rac._nr_pages++;
> > > + continue;
> > > +read:
> > > + if (readahead_count(&rac))
> > > + read_pages(&rac, &page_pool, gfp_mask);
> > > + rac._nr_pages = 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Also, why? This adds a goto from branched code that continues, then
> > adds a continue so the unbranched code doesn't execute the code the
> > goto jumps to. In absence of any explanation, this isn't an
> > improvement and doesn't make any sense...
>
> I thought I was explaining it ... "for easier use in subsequent patches".
Sorry, my braino there. :) I commented on the problem with the first
part of the sentence, then the rest of the sentence completely
failed to sink in.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
