On 12/01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:24:41PM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > 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 > > So what you're trying to say is that readahead() currently only uses > order-0 pages and you want it to use larger order pages? I agree with > that! But I don't think this is the way to do it. We should just use > larger order allocations, always. None of this "call the filesystem, > check a sysfs parameter". Just use the largest order page that fits.
I got that, and posted v2. Thanks, _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
