Hi Hannes, On 26/03/2024 10:39, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 3/25/24 19:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:46PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: >>> @@ -239,8 +239,8 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl, >>> * not worth getting one just for that. >>> */ >>> read_pages(ractl); >>> - ractl->_index++; >>> - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1; >>> + ractl->_index += folio_nr_pages(folio); >>> + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index; >>> continue; >>> } >>> @@ -252,13 +252,14 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl, >>> folio_put(folio); >>> read_pages(ractl); >>> ractl->_index++; >>> - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1; >>> + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index; >>> continue; >>> } >> >> You changed index++ in the first hunk, but not the second hunk. Is that >> intentional? > > Hmm. Looks you are right; it should be modified, too. > Will be fixing it up. > You initially had also in the second hunk: ractl->index += folio_nr_pages(folio); and I changed it to what it is now. The reason is in my reply to willy: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/s4jn4t4betknd3y4ltfccqxyfktzdljiz7klgbqsrccmv3rwrd@orlwjz77oyxo/ Let me know if you agree with it. > Cheers, > > Hannes >
