On 7/6/23 00:52, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 07/04/23 09:41, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >> On 7/4/2023 2:49 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote: >>> On 06/28/23 12:43, Yin Fengwei wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for your detailed analysis! >>> >>> When the regression was initially discovered, I sent a patch to revert >>> commit 9425c591e06a. Andrew has picked up this change. And, Andrew has >>> also picked up this patch. >> Oh. I didn't notice that you sent revert patch. My understanding is that >> commit 9425c591e06a is a good change. >> >>> >>> I have not verified yet, but I suspect that this patch is going to cause >>> a regression because it depends on the behavior of page_cache_next_miss >>> in 9425c591e06a which has been reverted. >> Yes. If the 9425c591e06a was reverted, this patch could introduce regression. >> Which fixing do you prefer? reverting 9425c591e06a or this patch? Then we >> can suggest to Andrew to take it. > > For now, I suggest we go with the revert. Why? > - The revert is already going into stable trees. > - I may not be remembering correctly, but I seem to recall Matthew > mentioning plans to redo/redesign the page cache and possibly > readahead code. If this is the case, then better to keep the legacy > behavior for now. But, I am not sure if this is actually part of any > plan or work in progress. > It's fine to me and thanks a lot for detail explanations. Hi Andrew, Could you please help to drop this patch? Thanks. Regards Yin, Fengwei
