[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZnBf5wXMOBWNl52x@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:10:15 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: david@...morbit.com, djwong@...nel.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
brauner@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, hare@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yang@...amperecomputing.com, Zi Yan <zi.yan@...t.com>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, p.raghav@...sung.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, gost.dev@...sung.com,
cl@...amperecomputing.com, john.g.garry@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/11] readahead: allocate folios with
mapping_min_order in readahead
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:04:20PM +0000, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:32:42PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> So the following can still be there from Hannes patch as we have a
> stable reference:
>
> ractl->_workingset |= folio_test_workingset(folio);
> - ractl->_nr_pages++;
> + ractl->_nr_pages += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> + i += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> }
We _can_, but we just allocated it, so we know what size it is already.
I'm starting to feel that Hannes' patch should be combined with this
one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists