On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:15:17PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I think I have a good folio replacement for memcpy_from_page(). One of > > the annoying things about dealing with multi-page folios is that you > > can't kmap the entire folio, yet on systems without highmem, you don't > > need to. It's also somewhat annoying in the caller to keep track > > of n/len/offset/pos/... > > > > I think this is probably the best option. We could have a loop that > > kmaps each page in the folio, but that seems like excessive complexity. > > Why? IMO better to contain the complexity of highmem systems into any > memcpy_[to,from]_folio() calls then spread them around the kernel. Sure, but look at the conversion that I posted. It's actually simpler than using the memcpy_from_page() API. > > I'm happy to have highmem systems be less efficient, since they are > > anyway. Another potential area of concern is that folios can be quite > > large and maybe having preemption disabled while we copy 2MB of data > > might be a bad thing. If so, the API is fine with limiting the amount > > of data we copy, we just need to find out that it is a problem and > > decide what the correct limit is, if it's not folio_size(). > > Why not map the pages only when needed? I agree that keeping preemption > disabled for a long time is a bad thing. But kmap_local_page does not > disable preemption, only migration. Some of the scheduler people aren't terribly happy about even disabling migration for a long time. Is "copying 2MB of data" a long time? If I've done my sums correctly, my current laptop has 2x 16 bit LP-DDR4-4267 DIMMs installed. That works out to 17GB/s and so copying 2MB of data will take 118us. Probably OK for even the most demanding workload. > Regardless any looping on the maps is going to only be on highmem systems > and we can map the pages only if/when needed. Synchronization of the folio > should be handled by the caller. So it is fine to all allow migration > during memcpy_from_folio(). > > So why not loop through the pages only when needed? So you're proposing re-enabling migration after calling kmap_local_folio()? I don't really understand. > > > > fs/ext4/verity.c | 16 +++++++--------- > > include/linux/highmem.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/page-flags.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/verity.c b/fs/ext4/verity.c > > index e4da1704438e..afe847c967a4 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/verity.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/verity.c > > @@ -42,18 +42,16 @@ static int pagecache_read(struct inode *inode, void *buf, size_t count, > > loff_t pos) > > { > > while (count) { > > - size_t n = min_t(size_t, count, > > - PAGE_SIZE - offset_in_page(pos)); > > - struct page *page; > > + struct folio *folio; > > + size_t n; > > > > - page = read_mapping_page(inode->i_mapping, pos >> PAGE_SHIFT, > > + folio = read_mapping_folio(inode->i_mapping, pos >> PAGE_SHIFT, > > NULL); > > Is this an issue with how many pages get read into the page > cache? I went off on a tangent thinking this read the entire folio into > the cache. But I see now I was wrong. If this is operating page by page > why change this function at all? The folio may (indeed _should_) be already present in the cache, otherwise the cache isn't doing a very good job. If read_mapping_folio() ends up having to allocate the folio, today it only allocates a single page folio. But if somebody else allocated it through the readahead code, and the filesystem supports multi-page folios, then it will be larger than a single page. All callers must be prepared to handle a multi-page folio. > > - if (IS_ERR(page)) > > - return PTR_ERR(page); > > - > > - memcpy_from_page(buf, page, offset_in_page(pos), n); > > + if (IS_ERR(folio)) > > + return PTR_ERR(folio); > > > > - put_page(page); > > + n = memcpy_from_file_folio(buf, folio, pos, count); > > + folio_put(folio); > > > > buf += n; > > pos += n; > > diff --git a/include/linux/highmem.h b/include/linux/highmem.h > > index 9fa462561e05..9917357b9e8f 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/highmem.h > > +++ b/include/linux/highmem.h > > @@ -414,6 +414,35 @@ static inline void memzero_page(struct page *page, size_t offset, size_t len) > > kunmap_local(addr); > > } > > > > +/** > > + * memcpy_from_file_folio - Copy some bytes from a file folio. > > + * @to: The destination buffer. > > + * @folio: The folio to copy from. > > + * @pos: The position in the file. > > + * @len: The maximum number of bytes to copy. > > + * > > + * Copy up to @len bytes from this folio. This may be limited by PAGE_SIZE > > I have a problem with 'may be limited'. How is the caller to know this? ... from the return value? > Won't this propagate a lot of checks in the caller? Effectively replacing > one complexity in the callers for another? Look at the caller I converted! It _reduces_ the amount of checks in the caller. > > + * if the folio comes from HIGHMEM, and by the size of the folio. > > + * > > + * Return: The number of bytes copied from the folio. > > + */ > > +static inline size_t memcpy_from_file_folio(char *to, struct folio *folio, > > + loff_t pos, size_t len) > > +{ > > + size_t offset = offset_in_folio(folio, pos); > > + char *from = kmap_local_folio(folio, offset); > > + > > + if (folio_test_highmem(folio)) > > + len = min(len, PAGE_SIZE - offset); > > + else > > + len = min(len, folio_size(folio) - offset); > > + > > + memcpy(to, from, len); > > Do we need flush_dcache_page() for the pages? Why? memcpy_from_page() doesn't have one. > I gave this an attempt today before I realized read_mapping_folio() only > reads a single page. :-( > > How does memcpy_from_file_folio() work beyond a single page? And in that > case what is the point? The more I think about this the more confused I > get. In the highmem case, we map a single page and so cannot go beyond a single page. If the folio wasn't allocated from highmem, we're just using its address directly, so we can access the whole folio. Hope I've cleared up your confusions.