On 12/07/2025 23:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 10:23:32 +0800 Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 2025/7/12 00:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 10.07.25 08:04, Chi Zhiling wrote:
>>>> From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> folio_nr_pages() is faster helper function to get the number of pages
>>>> when NR_PAGES_IN_LARGE_FOLIO is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/readahead.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c
>>>> index 95a24f12d1e7..406756d34309 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/readahead.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/readahead.c
>>>> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ void page_cache_async_ra(struct readahead_control
>>>> *ractl,
>>>> * Ramp up sizes, and push forward the readahead window.
>>>> */
>>>> expected = round_down(ra->start + ra->size - ra->async_size,
>>>> - 1UL << folio_order(folio));
>>>> + folio_nr_pages(folio));
>>>> if (index == expected) {
>>>> ra->start += ra->size;
>>>> /*
>>>
>>> This should probably get squashed in Ryans commit?
>>
>> I have no objection, it's up to Ryan.
>
> "Ryans commit" is now c4602f9fa77f ("mm/readahead: store folio order in
> struct file_ra_state") in mm-stable. I'd prefer not to rebase for this!
>
Sorry about that... the function was previously using foilio_order() and storing
in a local variable and using it in 2 places, one of which was "1UL << order".
Because the other user went away I just moved the folio_order() call inline. But
agree folio_nr_pages() is better. FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
