On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:45:21PM +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:

Hi,


* On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:42:50PM +0800, Fengguang Wu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

it.rprabhu@wnohang.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Date: Sat Sep 22 18:12:50 IST 2012

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 04:03:13PM +0530, raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

From: Raghavendra D Prabhu <redacted>

page_cache_sync_readahead checks for ra->ra_pages again, so moving the check
after VM_SequentialReadHint.

Well it depends on what case you are optimizing for. I suspect there
are much more tmpfs users than VM_SequentialReadHint users. So this
change is actually not desirable wrt the more widely used cases.

shm/tmpfs doesn't use this function for fault. They have shmem_fault
for that.  So, that shouldn't matter here. Agree?

That's true for the regular tmpfs and it still calls filemap_fault()
in the !CONFIG_SHMEM case and squashfs/cramfs etc. They together
should still overweight the VM_SequentialReadHint users?

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>