On Tue, Jun 12 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:10 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 13:31 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you prefer this change, then? I'd prefer keeping the current code,
> > > > unless it's absolutely critical that we call
> > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited() for each and every page instead of eg
> > > > every 16 pages here.
> > >
> > > For that we should call:
> > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr);
> > >
> > > Which is ok, for small nr.
> >
> > OK, then this should be better:
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
> > index 25ec9c8..ed40967 100644
> > --- a/fs/splice.c
> > +++ b/fs/splice.c
> > @@ -844,6 +883,9 @@ generic_file_splice_write_nolock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out,
> > sd.file = out;
> > ret = __splice_from_pipe(pipe, &sd, pipe_to_file);
> > if (ret > 0) {
> > + unsigned long nr_pages;
> > +
> > + nr_pages = (ret + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
>
> perhaps?
> nr_pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(ret, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
>
> not sure how horrid that turns out to be; you never know with gcc.
Well, I think such macros are horribly ugly and that the original code
is MUCH easier to read.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
