On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 07:13:54AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 22/07/2020 08:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + q->backing_dev_info->ra_pages = > > + max(queue_io_opt(q) * 2 / PAGE_SIZE, VM_READAHEAD_PAGES); > > Dumb question, wouldn't a '>> PAGE_SHIFT' be better instead of a potentially > costly division? > > Or aren't we caring at all as it's a) not in the fast-path and b) compilers > can optimize it to a shift? That's my thinking. If anyone has a strong preference I can change it.
