Re: [PATCH] readahead: enforce full sync mmap readahead size

From: Wu Fengguang
Date: Mon Apr 13 2009 - 09:53:39 EST


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 08:15:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >
> > Now that we do readahead for sequential mmap reads, here is
> > a simple evaluation of the impacts, and one further optimization.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Wu, I just went through your latest (?) series of 1-9 and they all looked
> (a) quite small and (b) all of them looked like good cleanups.
>
> And not only do they look good, you seem to have numbers to back it all up
> too.
>
> In other words, I'd really prefer to merge this sooner rather than later.
> There just doesn't seem to be any reason _not_ to. Is there any reason to
> not just take this? I realize that it's past -rc1, but this is way smaller
> and saner-looking than the average patch that makes it in past -rc1.
>
> Besides, it was originally posted before -rc1, and the last series didn't
> have the much more intrusive page-fault-retry patches. I'd leave those for
> the next merge window, but the read-ahead series (1-9 plus this final
> one-liner) seem to be pure improvement - both in code readability _and_ in
> numbers - with no real contentious issues.
>
> No?

They shall be fine for 2.6.30. For some reasons I'm submitting them a
bit late, but they are in fact mostly old patches that have received
good pondering and tests in my cookroom :-)

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