Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-41978-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:02:49 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/readahead: readahead aggressively if read drops
 in willneed range
Message-ID: <ZbbPCQZdazF7s0_b@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240128142522.1524741-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240128142522.1524741-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:25:22PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Since commit 6d2be915e589 ("mm/readahead.c: fix readahead failure for
> memoryless NUMA nodes and limit readahead max_pages"), ADV_WILLNEED
> only tries to readahead 512 pages, and the remained part in the advised
> range fallback on normal readahead.

Does the MAINTAINERS file mean nothing any more?

> If bdi->ra_pages is set as small, readahead will perform not efficient
> enough. Increasing read ahead may not be an option since workload may
> have mixed random and sequential I/O.

I thik there needs to be a lot more explanation than this about what's
going on before we jump to "And therefore this patch is the right
answer".

> @@ -972,6 +974,7 @@ struct file_ra_state {
>  	unsigned int ra_pages;
>  	unsigned int mmap_miss;
>  	loff_t prev_pos;
> +	struct maple_tree *need_mt;

No.  Embed the struct maple tree.  Don't allocate it.  What made you
think this was the right approach?