Hi Chao: At 2026-01-16 16:52:02, "Chao Yu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Do we have plans to also support reducing f2fs_map_blocks() calls for >> consectives holes in logical file postion with dnode have already been >> allocated in buffered large folio read? >> Such as consective NULL_ADDR or NEW_ADDR? > >Nanzhe, > >We have supported that for large folio read w/ this patch? > >Thanks, >
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. In the condition of F2FS_MAP_BLOCK_DEFAULT, the default: case will only set map->m_next_pgofs to pgofs + 1 then sync out. When we enter next iteration and the index advanced, currrent index now turns to pgofs + 1 and index < next_pgofs become false.In consequence, we won't reduce f2fs_map_blocks() calls for hole with dnode allocated. Also, for NEW_ADDR, the default: case will directly go to sync out and bypass map_is_mergeable, so it will also not reduce f2fs_map_blocks calls. Or am I missing something? Thanks, Nanzhe Zhao _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
