On 12/01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:01:26PM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > This patch introduces a new address operation, a_ops->ra_folio_order(), > > which > > proposes a new folio order based on the adjusted order for > > page_cache_sync_ra. > > > > Hence, each filesystem can set the desired minimum order of folio allocation > > when requesting fadvise(POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED). > > Again, you've said what but not why. Does the mm code not ramp up the > folio order sufficiently quickly? What are you trying to accomplish?
That's why I posted a series of the patches to provide more details. Could you please check the last patch in the series to show fadvise() does not increase the folio order? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/[email protected]/T/#u _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
