On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 04:28:04PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2024-11-26 16:06, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hum, checking the history the update of ra->size has been added by Neil two
> > years ago in 9fd472af84ab ("mm: improve cleanup when ->readpages doesn't
> > process all pages"). Neil, the changelog seems as there was some real
> > motivation behind updating of ra->size in read_pages(). What was it? Now I
> > somewhat disagree with reducing ra->size in read_pages() because it seems
> > like a wrong place to do that and if we do need something like that,
> > readahead window sizing logic should rather be changed to take that into
> > account? But it all depends on what was the real rationale behind reducing
> > ra->size in read_pages()...
>
> My (rather limited) understanding of the patch is that it was intended to read those pages
> that didn't get read because the allocation of a bigger folio failed, while not redoing what
> readpages already did; how it was actually going to accomplish that is still unclear to me,
> but I even don't even quite understand the comment...
>
> /*
> * If there were already pages in the page cache, then we may have
> * left some gaps. Let the regular readahead code take care of this
> * situation.
> */
>
> the reason for an unchanged async_size is also beyond my understanding.
This isn't because we couldn't allocate a folio, this is when we
allocated folios, tried to read them and we failed to submit the I/O.
This is a pretty rare occurrence under normal conditions.
