From c329861da40623cd838b8c9ee31a850242fd88cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josef Bacik Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:49:19 -0400 Subject: Btrfs: don't allocate a seperate csums array for direct reads We've been allocating a big array for csums instead of storing them in the io_tree like we do for buffered reads because previously we were locking the entire range, so we didn't have an extent state for each sector of the range. But now that we do the range locking as we map the buffers we can limit the mapping lenght to sectorsize and use the private part of the io_tree for our csums. This allows us to avoid an extra memory allocation for direct reads which could incur latency. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik --- fs/btrfs/file-item.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/btrfs/file-item.c') diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c index b45b9de0c21d..857d93cd01dc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c @@ -272,9 +272,9 @@ int btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode, } int btrfs_lookup_bio_sums_dio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode, - struct bio *bio, u64 offset, u32 *dst) + struct bio *bio, u64 offset) { - return __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(root, inode, bio, offset, dst, 1); + return __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(root, inode, bio, offset, NULL, 1); } int btrfs_lookup_csums_range(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 start, u64 end, -- cgit v1.2.3