Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755163AbZFCUr4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:47:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752527AbZFCUrt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:47:49 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:43299 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751826AbZFCUrs (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:47:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:47:39 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Randy Dunlap Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hifumi.hisashi@oss.ntt.co.jp, Jens Axboe , Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: mmotm 2009-06-02-16-11 uploaded (readahead) Message-Id: <20090603134739.97d8a461.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4A25F3FF.5060404@oracle.com> References: <200906022331.n52NVJhG015117@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <4A25F3FF.5060404@oracle.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1624 Lines: 43 On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:54:39 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2009-06-02-16-11 has been uploaded to > > > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ > > > > and will soon be available at > > > > git://git.zen-sources.org/zen/mmotm.git > > > readahead-add-blk_run_backing_dev.patch: > > mm/readahead.c: In function 'page_cache_async_readahead': > mm/readahead.c:559: error: implicit declaration of function 'blk_run_backing_dev' hm, yeah, CONFIG_BLOCK=n. Doing a block-specific call from inside page_cache_async_readahead() is a bit of a layering violation - this may not be a block-backed filesystem at all. otoh, perhaps blk_run_backing_dev() is wrongly named and defined in the wrong place. Perhaps non-block-backed backing_devs want to implement an unplug-style function too? In which case the whole thing should be renamed and moved outside blkdev.h. If we don't want to do that, shouldn't backing_dev_info.unplug* be wrapped in #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK? And wasn't it a layering violation to put block-specific things into the backing_dev_info? Jens, talk to me! >From the readahead POV: does it make sense to call the backing-dev's "unplug" function even if that isn't a block-based device? Or was this just a weird block-device-only performance problem? Hard to say. -- 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/