On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:51 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > > However, it still doesn't make too much sense to have thp_size passed > > > to do_invalidatepage(), then have PAGE_SIZE hardcoded in a BUG > > > assertion IMHO. So it seems this patch is still useful because > > > block_invalidatepage() is called by a few filesystems as well, for > > > example, ext4. Or I'm wondering whether we should call > > > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage of THP in truncate_cleanup_page() > > > since private is for each subpage IIUC. > > > > Seems no interest? > > No. I have changes in this area as part of the folio patchset (where > we end up converting this to invalidate_folio). I'm not really > interested in doing anything before that, since this shouldn't be > reachable today. Understood. But this is definitely reachable unless Hugh's patch (skipping non-regular file) is applied. > > > Anyway the more I was staring at the code the more I thought calling > > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage made more sense. So, something > > like the below makes sense? > > Definitely not. We want to invalidate the entire folio at once. I didn't look at the folio patch (on each individual patch level), but I'm supposed it still needs to invalidate buffer for each subpage, right?
