On 15.01.2019 19:36, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:14 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.01.2019 18:39, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
>>>> and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/fuse/file.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>>> if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>>>> struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>>>>
>>>> - copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
>>>> + swap(old_req->pages[0], page);
>>>
>>> This would mess up refcounting for all pages involved. need to swap
>>> with the temp page in new_req. Fixed version in #for-next.
>>
>> You are sure, page is just a simple pointer, not struct **page.
>> Then we would have had to change fuse_writepage_in_flight() to use ** pointer.
>
> Using a struct page** would still have been broken, not because of
> refcounting, but because of putting the wrong page into the request
> (we do the temporary copy to avoid some issues with adding the page
> cache page directly into the request)
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
Kirill
