On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:33:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 24-08-20 18:36:39, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > We already have functions in filemap which take a pagevec, eg > > page_cache_delete_batch() and delete_from_page_cache_batch(). > > Right but those are really pretty internal helper functions so I don't > think they form or strong precedence. To be honest, I saw that as being the way forward for the page cache APIs. If we're going to use a batching mechanism, it should be pagevecs, and it should be built into the page cache interfaces rather than hanging out off on the side. > > So if we're going to merge the two functions, it seems more natural to > > have it in filemap.c and called find_get_entries(), but I'm definitely > > open to persuasion on this! > > I agree that having non-trivial xarray code in mm/swap.c isn't attractive > either. Dunno, I dislike the inconsistency between find_get_pages() and > find_get_entries() you create but they aren't completely consistent anyway > so I can live with that. Or we can just leave the pagevec_lookup_entries() > wrapper and the API will stay consistent... I was thinking about this some more [1] [2]. I think we can get to the point where find_get_pages(), find_get_entries() and find_get_pages_tag() (and all their variants) end up taking a pagevec as their last argument. Also, I was thinking that all these names are wrong. Really, they're mapping_get_pages(), mapping_get_entries() and mapping_get_marked_pages(). So maybe I should move in that direction. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200824214841.17132-1-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200824183424.4222-1-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
