From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com>
Cc: viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] raid5: For write performance, remove REQ_SYNC when write was odirect.
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:30:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120716173028.69dd5ead@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201207161511247039289@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1506 bytes --]
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:11:29 +0800 majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-07-16 15:07 NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> Wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:42:54 +0800 majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012-07-16 13:40 NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> Wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:31:55 +0800 majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> [snip]
> >> > Normal 'sync' requests use WRITE_SYNC which includes "REQ_NOIDLE" which means
> >> > /* don't anticipate more IO after this one */
> >> > O_DIRECT request use WRITE_ODIRECT which does not include this flag.
> >> >
> >
> >> Using REQ_NOIDEL to difference odirect and sync.Why not using:
> >> + if (bi->bi_rw & WRITE_ODIRECT)
> >> + bi->bi_rw &= ~REQ_SYNC;
> >
> >Because that code is wrong. WRITE_ODIRECT is not one flag, it is two flags
> >'or'ed together. So this code does not do what you expect.
> >
> No, I used those code test and it's ok.
> The code used & not &&.
> Maybe I wrong?
Think about it...
#define REQ_WRITE (1 << __REQ_WRITE)
#define REQ_SYNC (1 << __REQ_SYNC)
#define RW_MASK REQ_WRITE
#define WRITE RW_MASK
#define WRITE_ODIRECT (WRITE | REQ_SYNC)
So
(bi->bi_rw & WRITE_ODIRECT)
will be true if either REQ_WRITE or REQ_SYNC are set in bi_rw
So whenever REQ_SYNC is set, your code clears the flag.
So your code is functionally identical to
bi->bi_rw &= ~REQ_SYNC;
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-16 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-16 1:31 [PATCH 2/2] raid5: For write performance, remove REQ_SYNC when write was odirect majianpeng
2012-07-16 5:40 ` NeilBrown
2012-07-16 5:47 ` majianpeng
2012-07-16 6:42 ` majianpeng
2012-07-16 7:07 ` NeilBrown
2012-07-16 7:11 ` majianpeng
2012-07-16 7:30 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2012-07-16 8:14 ` majianpeng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120716173028.69dd5ead@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=majianpeng@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).