Yin Fengwei wrote:
> folio_zero_range() calls the flush_dcache_folio() already. Remove
> unnecessary flush_dcache_folio() call.
The change is probably reasonable but this statement is not exactly true.
The detail is that flush_dcache_page() is already called and another loop
through the folio pages is unneeded. Not to mention hiding these flush
calls is nice because it is so hard to know when to use them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/libfs.c | 1 -
> mm/shmem.c | 7 +------
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c
> index 4eda519c3002..d57370c8e382 100644
> --- a/fs/libfs.c
> +++ b/fs/libfs.c
> @@ -543,7 +543,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(simple_setattr);
> static int simple_read_folio(struct file *file, struct folio *folio)
> {
> folio_zero_range(folio, 0, folio_size(folio));
> - flush_dcache_folio(folio);
> folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> folio_unlock(folio);
> return 0;
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 448f393d8ab2..66e50f0a15ab 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -1401,7 +1401,6 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> goto redirty;
> }
> folio_zero_range(folio, 0, folio_size(folio));
> - flush_dcache_folio(folio);
> folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> }
>
> @@ -2010,11 +2009,7 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> * it now, lest undo on failure cancel our earlier guarantee.
> */
> if (sgp != SGP_WRITE && !folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
> - long i, n = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> - clear_highpage(folio_page(folio, i));
> - flush_dcache_folio(folio);
> + folio_zero_range(folio, 0, folio_size(folio));
This is a separate optimization from what your cover letter explained.
Ira
