On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 01:41:02PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 25/06/2024 13:37, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> For other filesystems, like ext4, I did not found the logic to determin what
> >>> size of folio to allocate in writable mmap() path
> >>
> >> Yes I'd be keen to understand this to. When I was doing contpte, page cache
> >> would only allocate large folios for readahead. So that's why I wouldn't have
> >
> > You mean non-large folios, right?
>
> No I mean that at the time I wrote contpte, the policy was to allocate an
> order-0 folio for any writes that missed in the page cache, and allocate large
> folios only when doing readahead from storage into page cache. The test that is
> regressing is doing writes.
mmap() faults also use readahead.
filemap_fault():
folio = filemap_get_folio(mapping, index);
if (likely(!IS_ERR(folio))) {
if (!(vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_TRIED))
fpin = do_async_mmap_readahead(vmf, folio);
which does:
if (folio_test_readahead(folio)) {
fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(vmf, fpin);
page_cache_async_ra(&ractl, folio, ra->ra_pages);
which has been there in one form or another since 2007 (3ea89ee86a82).
