Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/readahead: try to allocate high order pages for FADVISE_FAV_WILLNEED

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 12/03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/02, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 01:30:13AM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > @@ -627,7 +628,7 @@ void page_cache_sync_ra(struct readahead_control *ractl,
> > >  	ra->size = min(contig_count + req_count, max_pages);
> > >  	ra->async_size = 1;
> > >  readit:
> > > -	ra->order = 0;
> > > +	ra->order = mapping_max_folio_order(ractl->mapping);
> > >  	ractl->_index = ra->start;
> > >  	page_cache_ra_order(ractl, ra);
> > >  }
> > 
> > I suspect this is in the wrong place, but I'm on holiday and not going
> > to go spelunking through the readahead code looking for the right place.
> > 
> > Also, going directly to max folio order is wrong, we should use the same
> > approach as the write order code, encapsulated in filemap_get_order().
> > See 4f6617011910
> 
> It seems the key is page_cache_ra_order() which allocates pages by
> ra_alloc_folio() given ra->order. FWIW, madvise() and fault() readahead
> takes page_cache_async_ra(), while fadvise() takes page_cache_sync_ra().
> And, the former one has a logic to bump up the ra->order += 2 by f838ddf8cef5.
> I think it'd make sense to match that behavior?

Comment by any chance?