[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230621151855.318449527a851cc0bb62fb34@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:18:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert
"page cache: fix page_cache_next/prev_miss off by one"
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:24:02 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> This reverts commit 9425c591e06a9ab27a145ba655fb50532cf0bcc9
>
> The reverted commit fixed up routines primarily used by readahead code
> such that they could also be used by hugetlb. Unfortunately, this
> caused a performance regression as pointed out by the Closes: tag.
>
> The hugetlb code which uses page_cache_next_miss will be addressed in
> a subsequent patch.
Often these throughput changes are caused by rather random
alignment/layout changes and the code change itself was innocent.
Do we have an explanation for this regression, or was it a surprise?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists