From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops in willneed range
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:02:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZbbPCQZdazF7s0_b@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240128142522.1524741-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:25:22PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Since commit 6d2be915e589 ("mm/readahead.c: fix readahead failure for
> memoryless NUMA nodes and limit readahead max_pages"), ADV_WILLNEED
> only tries to readahead 512 pages, and the remained part in the advised
> range fallback on normal readahead.
Does the MAINTAINERS file mean nothing any more?
> If bdi->ra_pages is set as small, readahead will perform not efficient
> enough. Increasing read ahead may not be an option since workload may
> have mixed random and sequential I/O.
I thik there needs to be a lot more explanation than this about what's
going on before we jump to "And therefore this patch is the right
answer".
> @@ -972,6 +974,7 @@ struct file_ra_state {
> unsigned int ra_pages;
> unsigned int mmap_miss;
> loff_t prev_pos;
> + struct maple_tree *need_mt;
No. Embed the struct maple tree. Don't allocate it. What made you
think this was the right approach?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-28 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-28 14:25 [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops in willneed range Ming Lei
2024-01-28 22:02 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2024-01-28 23:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-29 0:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-01-29 0:39 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-29 1:47 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-29 2:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-29 4:56 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-29 3:57 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-29 5:15 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-29 8:25 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-29 13:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-01-29 22:07 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-30 3:13 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-30 5:29 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-30 11:34 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-29 3:20 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-29 3:00 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-29 17:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-29 17:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-29 22:12 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-29 22:46 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-01-30 10:43 ` David Hildenbrand
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=ZbbPCQZdazF7s0_b@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
/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).