From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C36C3ABAC for ; Tue, 6 May 2025 10:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B08996B000A; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A92956B0085; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:03:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9337B6B0093; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:03:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E3F6B000A for ; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0121611FD for ; Tue, 6 May 2025 10:03:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83412045612.18.E3A6314 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C8616000C for ; Tue, 6 May 2025 10:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1746525805; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=QciqBUQFlw4nlAK7/xF+8Lr9mA9OAez1vidls346Sg+jMXGKIWgJ6PVSUQGkWf6wtux8cV kkCETOfmENII2E2LjlZPNqyLsS0T7SOuhNDB+y1wPCgE2ikGeoTJze1O5vivvMZZv6cA+u dB+MujUg6c8ecSMJ3CKkEsiC5yMnJYc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1746525805; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gf9wPecuF6jZ3/gtelaLr6U4meW6T+0BB99Oy2CrwcQ=; b=MMKQWvYmYXtdC7OzpZ/bwhMmjY6Qz/1+4pRBi7IUuqUIJgDpZJni5lIymmma07TemDTYYp 0d/cFh4CCc7koucwzwQIG3ccCJe5eDZ8fOG1SXlQ5/kUt8z1dEqn5P6xyGLHO674zRjDJi B4thSLFEshColJ1FYFMmR4UUpZdEKTg= Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F0B113E; Tue, 6 May 2025 03:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.93.118] (unknown [10.57.93.118]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF2A83F5A1; Tue, 6 May 2025 03:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2b1ea3d9-6c9b-4700-ae21-5f65565a995a@arm.com> Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 11:03:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/5] mm/readahead: Store folio order in struct file_ra_state Content-Language: en-GB To: David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" , Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Kalesh Singh , Zi Yan Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20250430145920.3748738-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20250430145920.3748738-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 34C8616000C X-Stat-Signature: ow44t7uatgwxd7cu9qtsa1sqrkszt39e X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1746525805-880383 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX19/8CqfrKBi21SShamKL9Vu++8j7PXYvwWw3LTeHJR9ZNWpzOwvdJxvgIFeZOBAeNuwjUqTFzg8x4N+8ap6xb7c6E/PJxhNf5OvBynG78exawaKuk5hcm4dI3Wri7LV60j7C6LelpQg2PFvPOkBk0i+p1CfjYoLw8kMrPRabDihsTgDk6+IX29i6wtBArT5wUhr+h/R2lNrllwDK+cl+07+1Yp1zvCyorA5OKJU/RsDYuxXuQUL+I5M6UAj3DLUK9gxQOw+kyS+D+OMoTk4KJvQE+rbQTj+XiBbUX49E4YlL0zoo28opLj/Zldb5qhPo1+u/sjLoRJOT14/ox43KZrZHIX7HKNOESloXm4sa3PcbvQcfF8fVTDlQcXs+Od3fanlf+SgHbfmC1pQA668PSH2VtyA5B6hODN9TDxjqtjsLnCx32Wm35aXALIZpuVtcLLq0AMPMSlo22LObdRayCzlzU9b8ytiL23rdcDmQj0NrTjeH0MJ2IWgj8dFiz31XcuF4ZsILuMef8hxMKy2B/GthsqnUmInK0KRiabD385Efdx32rMr6E4lIZTyTXoObPh8GDQGf5pdh7MKS94ivL+vUZXVwRZEShp5oczsdPWUG0MQG5Cg5z9Jj/43qfTwCfkKAEWWdVJcu9Xq3by8Q2detfnn+5Sd2zcXRVmnpzxs2LP68JOD9zTJiYql+Qgga3z1MaR3P4cyN6pvDYtcupoLKR1Cp1j/nkU+3dp/Zfdx6QhQT3GZjnWdApn0dV3hE9f+PsdfDOekVKfuvIMvms9FwCSOSbq9reR+G3yjXo72Idvn10jYEH16/DhUzwixpseSVhUGsnqgYjsPvxftQTpjt4awjvq7/IZtoZpDnGRILTz1uyQaHiee1YqeiLch+dzIgadwDoQcItv4Sm84QHefVIDut/6Cs5243b1SszebQAyiLg3pmGraIlW1FclEC9sywDPYpyp 3S/WcyAC qOZMlzPIEFrtW73zHSkbxyl7Jn7I+YzTMYTVoMM7r49ZhMa43K4kVcDh6ldj0WBbG6RE8dVljMcYYI12nBwaLUBj5cs/Vf6XxNlo4VKgU+8ewfQA4aJhoXjFbOhd2YuzK8U8UHdH4rtgzfdQtmx9p7eqQVWyVYS0Aek09P3z/ZEh1CFACoo16xVW07AckgHDf9p9ydXoWXk8vLExh4CofnZ0KePP0cP45JeFWoMxlaRAc+P6S32Ff/I8S2zAz8FzM5gbXydO1Jkk5fdqiELQugJ1p5A== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 05/05/2025 11:08, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 30.04.25 16:59, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> Previously the folio order of the previous readahead request was >> inferred from the folio who's readahead marker was hit. But due to the >> way we have to round to non-natural boundaries sometimes, this first >> folio in the readahead block is often smaller than the preferred order >> for that request. This means that for cases where the initial sync >> readahead is poorly aligned, the folio order will ramp up much more >> slowly. >> >> So instead, let's store the order in struct file_ra_state so we are not >> affected by any required alignment. We previously made enough room in >> the struct for a 16 order field. This should be plenty big enough since >> we are limited to MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER anyway, which is certainly never >> larger than ~20. >> >> Since we now pass order in struct file_ra_state, page_cache_ra_order() >> no longer needs it's new_order parameter, so let's remove that. >> >> Worked example: >> >> Here we are touching pages 17-256 sequentially just as we did in the >> previous commit, but now that we are remembering the preferred order >> explicitly, we no longer have the slow ramp up problem. Note >> specifically that we no longer have 2 rounds (2x ~128K) of order-2 >> folios: >> >> TYPE    STARTOFFS     ENDOFFS        SIZE  STARTPG    ENDPG   NRPG  ORDER  RA >> -----  ----------  ----------  ----------  -------  -------  -----  -----  -- >> HOLE   0x00000000  0x00001000        4096        0        1      1 >> FOLIO  0x00001000  0x00002000        4096        1        2      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00002000  0x00003000        4096        2        3      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00003000  0x00004000        4096        3        4      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00004000  0x00005000        4096        4        5      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00005000  0x00006000        4096        5        6      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00006000  0x00007000        4096        6        7      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00007000  0x00008000        4096        7        8      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00008000  0x00009000        4096        8        9      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00009000  0x0000a000        4096        9       10      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000a000  0x0000b000        4096       10       11      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000b000  0x0000c000        4096       11       12      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000c000  0x0000d000        4096       12       13      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000d000  0x0000e000        4096       13       14      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000e000  0x0000f000        4096       14       15      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0000f000  0x00010000        4096       15       16      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00010000  0x00011000        4096       16       17      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00011000  0x00012000        4096       17       18      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00012000  0x00013000        4096       18       19      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00013000  0x00014000        4096       19       20      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00014000  0x00015000        4096       20       21      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00015000  0x00016000        4096       21       22      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00016000  0x00017000        4096       22       23      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00017000  0x00018000        4096       23       24      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00018000  0x00019000        4096       24       25      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00019000  0x0001a000        4096       25       26      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001a000  0x0001b000        4096       26       27      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001b000  0x0001c000        4096       27       28      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001c000  0x0001d000        4096       28       29      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001d000  0x0001e000        4096       29       30      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001e000  0x0001f000        4096       30       31      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x0001f000  0x00020000        4096       31       32      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00020000  0x00021000        4096       32       33      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00021000  0x00022000        4096       33       34      1      0 >> FOLIO  0x00022000  0x00024000        8192       34       36      2      1 >> FOLIO  0x00024000  0x00028000       16384       36       40      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x00028000  0x0002c000       16384       40       44      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x0002c000  0x00030000       16384       44       48      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x00030000  0x00034000       16384       48       52      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x00034000  0x00038000       16384       52       56      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x00038000  0x0003c000       16384       56       60      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x0003c000  0x00040000       16384       60       64      4      2 >> FOLIO  0x00040000  0x00050000       65536       64       80     16      4 >> FOLIO  0x00050000  0x00060000       65536       80       96     16      4 >> FOLIO  0x00060000  0x00080000      131072       96      128     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x00080000  0x000a0000      131072      128      160     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x000a0000  0x000c0000      131072      160      192     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x000c0000  0x000e0000      131072      192      224     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x000e0000  0x00100000      131072      224      256     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x00100000  0x00120000      131072      256      288     32      5 >> FOLIO  0x00120000  0x00140000      131072      288      320     32      5  Y >> HOLE   0x00140000  0x00800000     7077888      320     2048   1728 >> >> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts >> --- >>   include/linux/fs.h |  2 ++ >>   mm/filemap.c       |  6 ++++-- >>   mm/internal.h      |  3 +-- >>   mm/readahead.c     | 18 +++++++++++------- >>   4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h >> index 44362bef0010..cde482a7270a 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h >> @@ -1031,6 +1031,7 @@ struct fown_struct { >>    *      and so were/are genuinely "ahead".  Start next readahead when >>    *      the first of these pages is accessed. >>    * @ra_pages: Maximum size of a readahead request, copied from the bdi. >> + * @order: Preferred folio order used for most recent readahead. > > Looking at other members, and how it relates to the other members, should we > call this something like "ra_prev_order" / "prev_ra_order" to distinguish it > from !ra members and indicate the "most recent" semantics similar to "prev_pos"? As you know, I'm crap at naming, but... start, size, async_size and order make up the parameters for the "most recent" readahead request. Where "most recent" includes "current" once passed into page_cache_ra_order(). The others don't include "ra" or "prev" in their name so wasn't sure it was necessary here. ra_pages is a bit different; that's not part of the request, it's a (dynamic) ceiling to use when creating requests. Personally I'd leave it as is, but no strong opinion. > > Just a thought while digging through this patch ... > > ... > >> --- a/mm/filemap.c >> +++ b/mm/filemap.c >> @@ -3222,7 +3222,8 @@ static struct file *do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct >> vm_fault *vmf) >>           if (!(vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ)) >>               ra->size *= 2; >>           ra->async_size = HPAGE_PMD_NR; >> -        page_cache_ra_order(&ractl, ra, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER); >> +        ra->order = HPAGE_PMD_ORDER; >> +        page_cache_ra_order(&ractl, ra); >>           return fpin; >>       } >>   #endif >> @@ -3258,8 +3259,9 @@ static struct file *do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct >> vm_fault *vmf) >>       ra->start = max_t(long, 0, vmf->pgoff - ra->ra_pages / 2); >>       ra->size = ra->ra_pages; >>       ra->async_size = ra->ra_pages / 4; >> +    ra->order = 0; >>       ractl._index = ra->start; >> -    page_cache_ra_order(&ractl, ra, 0); >> +    page_cache_ra_order(&ractl, ra); >>       return fpin; >>   } > > Why not let page_cache_ra_order() consume the order and update ra->order (or > however it will be called :) ) internally? You mean continue to pass new_order as a parameter to page_cache_ra_order()? The reason I did it the way I'm doing it is because I thought it would be weird for the caller of page_cache_ra_order() to set up all the parameters (start, size, async_size) of the request except for order... > > That might make at least the "most recent readahead" semantics of the variable > clearer. But if you think your suggestion makes things clearer, then that's fine by me. Thanks, Ryan > > Again, just a thought ... >