| Date | Fri, 26 May 2006 08:33:19 +1000 | From | Paul Mackerras <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/33] readahead: refactor __do_page_cache_readahead() |
| |
Andrew Morton writes:
> Wu Fengguang <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote: > > @@ -302,6 +303,8 @@ __do_page_cache_readahead(struct address > > break; > > page->index = page_offset; > > list_add(&page->lru, &page_pool); > > + if (page_idx == nr_to_read - lookahead_size) > > + __SetPageReadahead(page); > > ret++; > > } > > OK. But the __SetPageFoo() things still give me the creeps.
I just hope that Wu Fengguang, or whoever is making these patches, realizes that on some architectures, doing __set_bit on one CPU concurrently with another CPU doing set_bit on a different bit in the same word can result in the second CPU's update getting lost...
Paul. - 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/
|