On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 09:22:41AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:36 AM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:16:39AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > Here's a fixed and cleaned up version that passes fstests on gfs2. > > > > > > I see no reason why the combination of tail packing + writing should > > > cause any issues, so in my opinion, the check that disables that > > > combination in iomap_write_begin_inline should still be removed. > > > > Since there is no such fs for tail-packing write, I just do a wild > > guess, for example, > > 1) the tail-end block was not inlined, so iomap_write_end() dirtied > > the whole page (or buffer) for the page writeback; > > 2) then it was truncated into a tail-packing inline block so the last > > extent(page) became INLINE but dirty instead; > > 3) during the late page writeback for dirty pages, > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(wpc->iomap.type == IOMAP_INLINE)) > > would be triggered in iomap_writepage_map() for such dirty page. > > > > As Matthew pointed out before, > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/YPrms0fWPwEZGNAL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > currently tail-packing inline won't interact with page writeback, but > > I'm afraid a supported tail-packing write fs needs to reconsider the > > whole stuff how page, inode writeback works and what the pattern is > > with the tail-packing. > > > > > > > > It turns out that returning the number of bytes copied from > > > iomap_read_inline_data is a bit irritating: the function is really used > > > for filling the page, but that's not always the "progress" we're looking > > > for. In the iomap_readpage case, we actually need to advance by an > > > antire page, but in the iomap_file_buffered_write case, we need to > > > advance by the length parameter of iomap_write_actor or less. So I've > > > changed that back. > > > > > > I've also renamed iomap_inline_buf to iomap_inline_data and I've turned > > > iomap_inline_data_size_valid into iomap_within_inline_data, which seems > > > more useful to me. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andreas > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] iomap: Support tail packing > > > > > > The existing inline data support only works for cases where the entire > > > file is stored as inline data. For larger files, EROFS stores the > > > initial blocks separately and then can pack a small tail adjacent to the > > > inode. Generalise inline data to allow for tail packing. Tails may not > > > cross a page boundary in memory. > > > > > > We currently have no filesystems that support tail packing and writing, > > > so that case is currently disabled (see iomap_write_begin_inline). I'm > > > not aware of any reason why this code path shouldn't work, however. > > > > > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Tested-by: Huang Jianan <huangjianan@xxxxxxxx> # erofs > > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 11 ++++++----- > > > include/linux/iomap.h | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > index 87ccb3438bec..334bf98fdd4a 100644 > > > --- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > @@ -205,25 +205,29 @@ struct iomap_readpage_ctx { > > > struct readahead_control *rac; > > > }; > > > > > > -static void > > > -iomap_read_inline_data(struct inode *inode, struct page *page, > > > +static int iomap_read_inline_data(struct inode *inode, struct page *page, > > > struct iomap *iomap) > > > { > > > - size_t size = i_size_read(inode); > > > + size_t size = i_size_read(inode) - iomap->offset; > > > > I wonder why you use i_size / iomap->offset here, > > This function is supposed to copy the inline or tail data at > iomap->inline_data into the page passed to it. Logically, the inline > data starts at iomap->offset and extends until i_size_read(inode). > Relative to the page, the inline data starts at offset 0 and extends > until i_size_read(inode) - iomap->offset. It's as simple as that. > > > and why you completely ignoring iomap->length field returning by fs. > > In the iomap_readpage case (iomap_begin with flags == 0), > iomap->length will be the amount of data up to the end of the inode. > In the iomap_file_buffered_write case (iomap_begin with flags == > IOMAP_WRITE), iomap->length will be the size of iomap->inline_data. > (For extending writes, we need to write beyond the current end of > inode.) So iomap->length isn't all that useful for > iomap_read_inline_data. > > > Using i_size here instead of iomap->length seems coupling to me in the > > beginning (even currently in practice there is some limitation.) > > And what is that? In short, I'm not against your modification. Since from my own point of view, these are all minor stuffs. No matter my v7 or your patch attached. As Darrick said before, "at least not muddy the waters further." What I need to confirm is to make sure the functionality works both on gfs2 and erofs, and merge into iomap for-next so I could rebase my development branch and do my own development then. Finally, would you minding add your own SOB on this and fix what Matthew pointed out? Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Thanks, > Andreas
