Re: mmotm 2009-06-02-16-11 uploaded (readahead)

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jun 03 2009 - 16:48:01 EST


On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:54:39 -0700
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/