On 11/16/2016 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 11/16/2016 12:17 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 12:31 PM Jens Axboe wrote:
@@ -369,10 +369,25 @@ ondemand_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
bool hit_readahead_marker, pgoff_t offset,
unsigned long req_size)
{
- unsigned long max = ra->ra_pages;
+ unsigned long io_pages, max_pages;
pgoff_t prev_offset;
/*
+ * If bdi->io_pages is set, that indicates the (soft) max IO size
+ * per command for that device. If we have that available, use
+ * that as the max suitable read-ahead size for this IO. Instead of
+ * capping read-ahead at ra_pages if req_size is larger, we can go
+ * up to io_pages. If io_pages isn't set, fall back to using
+ * ra_pages as a safe max.
+ */
+ io_pages = inode_to_bdi(mapping->host)->io_pages;
+ if (io_pages) {
+ max_pages = max_t(unsigned long, ra->ra_pages, req_size);
+ io_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);
Doubt if you mean
max_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);
No, that is what I mean. We want the maximum of the RA setting and the
user IO size, but the minimum of that and the device max command size.
Johannes pointed out that I'm an idiot - a last minute edit introduced
this typo, and I was too blind to spot it when you sent that email this
morning. So yes, it should of course be:
max_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);
like the first version I posted. I'll post a v3...
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>