Hi David... I got your netfs-lib branch as of Apr 15. I added my orangefs_readahead on top of it and ran through xfstests. I failed generic 75, 112, 127, & 263, which I don't usually fail. I took off my orangefs_readahead patch and ran xfstests with your untouched netfs-lib branch. No regressions. I git-reset back to 5.12.0-rc4 (I think your netfs-lib branch is based on a linus-tree-of-the-day?) and ran xfstests... no regressions. So... I think all your stuff is working well from my perspective and that I need to figure out why my orangefs_readahead patch is causing the regressions I listed. My readahead implementation (via your readahead_expand) is really fast, but it is bare-bones... I'm probably leaving out some important stuff... I see other filesystem's readahead implementations doing stuff like avoiding doing readahead on pages that have yet to be written back for example. The top two commits at https://github.com/hubcapsc/linux/tree/readahead_v3 is the current state of my readahead implementation. Please do add Tested-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -Mike On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:08 AM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mike Marshall <hubcap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi David... I've been gone on a motorcycle adventure, > > sorry for the delay... here's my public branch... > > > > https://github.com/hubcapsc/linux/tree/readahead_v3 > > That seems to have all of my fscache-iter branch in it. I thought you'd said > you'd dropped them because they were causing problems. > > Anyway, I've distilled the basic netfs lib patches, including the readahead > expansion patch and ITER_XARRAY patch here: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=netfs-lib > > if that's of use to you? > > If you're using any of these patches, would it be possible to get a Tested-by > for them that I can add? > > David >
