[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZbfjjmlvPrbdKIjX@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:42:38 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops
in willneed range
On Mon, Jan 29 2024 at 12:19P -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org> wrote:
> While I'm sure this legacy application would love to not have to
> change its code at all, I think we can all agree that we need to just
> focus on how best to advise applications that have mixed workloads
> accomplish efficient mmap+read of both sequential and random.
>
> To that end, I heard Dave clearly suggest 2 things:
>
> 1) update MADV/FADV_SEQUENTIAL to set file->f_ra.ra_pages to
> bdi->io_pages, not bdi->ra_pages * 2
>
> 2) Have the application first issue MADV_SEQUENTIAL to convey that for
> the following MADV_WILLNEED is for sequential file load (so it is
> desirable to use larger ra_pages)
>
> This overrides the default of bdi->io_pages and _should_ provide the
> required per-file duality of control for readahead, correct?
I meant "This overrides the default of bdi->ra_pages ..." ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists