From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 7/8] Filesystem AIO read Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:57:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20061228115747.GB25644@infradead.org> References: <20061227153855.GA25898@in.ibm.com> <20061228082308.GA4476@in.ibm.com> <20061228084252.GG6971@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, akpm@osdl.org, drepper@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jakub@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:40041 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754828AbWL1L5y (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 06:57:54 -0500 To: Suparna Bhattacharya Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061228084252.GG6971@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > + if (in_aio()) { > + /* Avoid repeat readahead */ > + if (kiocbTryRestart(io_wait_to_kiocb(current->io_wait))) > + next_index = last_index; > + } Every place we use kiocbTryRestart in this and the next patch it's in this from, so we should add a little helper for it: int aio_try_restart(void) { struct wait_queue_head_t *wq = current->io_wait; if (!is_sync_wait(wq) && kiocbTryRestart(io_wait_to_kiocb(wq))) return 1; return 0; } with a big kerneldoc comment explaining this idiom (and possible a better name for the function ;-)) > + > + if ((error = __lock_page(page, current->io_wait))) { > + goto readpage_error; > + } This should be error = __lock_page(page, current->io_wait); if (error) goto readpage_error; Pluse possible naming updates discussed in the last mail. Also do we really need to pass current->io_wait here? Isn't the waitqueue in the kiocb always guaranteed to be the same? Now that all pagecache I/O goes through the ->aio_read/->aio_write routines I'd prefer to get rid of the task_struct field cludges and pass all this around in the kiocb.