On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 04:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Ram wrote: > > > > No. There is a reason why we had some duplication. With your patch, > > we will end up reading-on-demand instead of reading ahead. > > > > When we notice a sequential reads have resumed, we first read in the > > data that is requested. > > However if the read request is for more pages than what are being held > > in the current window, we make the ahead window as the current window > > and read in more pages in the ahead window. Doing that gives the > > opportunity of always having pages in the ahead window when the next > > sequential read request comes in. > > Yes, sorry. I have not noticed that this 'goto out' is conditional in > the 'no ahead window' case. > > Thank you for explanation. > > However, I still think it makes sense to factor out the common code in > these two cases, just for readability.
We did consider putting a while loop, which looped twice. That looked ugly too. So we left it as is. You might have better ideas. > > I'll redo these patches. > Your 1st patch was fine. I have not looked deeply through your 3rd and 4th patch. However I will wait till you redo your patches. RP > Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
