On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 23:59 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:44:01PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > who removed the !offset condition, he should be consulted on its
> > reintroduction.
> 
> the !offset check looks a pretty broken heuristic indeed, it would
> break random I/O.

I wouldn't call it broken.  At worst, I'd say it's imperfect.  But
that's the nature of a heuristic.  It most likely works in a huge
majority of cases.

quoted text
> The real fix is to add a ra.prev_offset along with
> ra.prev_page, and if who implements it wants to be stylish he can as
> well use a ra.last_contiguous_read structure that has a page and
> offset fields (and then of course remove ra.prev_page).

I suggested something along these lines, but I wonder if it's overkill.
The !offset check is simple and appears to be a decent improvement over
the current code.
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/