From: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>,
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] mm: fix the sync buffered read to the old way
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:58:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
The commit 324bcf54c449 changed the code path of async buffered reads
to go with the page_cache_sync_readahead() way when readahead is
disabled, meanwhile the sync buffered reads are forced to do IO in the
above way as well, which makes it go to a more complex code path.
Fixes: 324bcf54c449 ("mm: use limited read-ahead to satisfy read")
Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
---
Hi Jens,
I see it from the commit 324bcf54c449 ("mm: use limited read-ahead to
satisfy read") that we have forced normal sync buffered reads go with
the page_cache_sync_readahead() when readahead is disabled. I'm not
sure if this is what you expected. Here I changed the sync buffered
reads to go with the old code path(a_ops->readpage()), and tested the
performance of them, the results of IOPS and cpu time are similar. I
need your opinion on this.
mm/filemap.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index e4101b5bfa82..0b2a0f633c01 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -2224,9 +2224,14 @@ ssize_t generic_file_buffered_read(struct kiocb *iocb,
if (!page) {
if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOIO)
goto would_block;
- page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping,
- ra, filp,
- index, last_index - index);
+ /*
+ * when readahead is disabled and IOCB_WAITQ isn't set
+ * we should go with the readpage() way.
+ */
+ if (ra->ra_pages || (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_WAITQ))
+ page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping,
+ ra, filp,
+ index, last_index - index);
page = find_get_page(mapping, index);
if (unlikely(page == NULL))
goto no_cached_page;
--
1.8.3.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-22 13:58 Hao Xu [this message]
2020-10-22 14:10 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: fix the sync buffered read to the old way Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-22 14:55 ` Hao_Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1603375114-58419-1-git-send-email-haoxu@linux.alibaba.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox