On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 04:46:13AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:27:15PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 04:15:25AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:58:09PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * The refcount will be elevated if any page in the folio is mapped. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * The refcounts break down as follows: > > > > > + * 1 per mapped page > > > > > + * 1 from folio_attach_private, if private is set > > > > > + * 1 from allocating the page in the first place > > > > > + * 1 from the caller > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > I think the above explanation is correct at least from my code > > > > inspection. Most of the callers are related to memory failure. I would > > > > reword the "1 per mapped page" to "1 per page in page cache" or > > > > something as mapped here might mean mapped in page tables. > > > > > > It's not though. The "1 from allocating the page in the first place" > > > is donated to the page cache. It's late here and I don't have the > > > ability to work through what's really going on here. > > > > Can you explain what you mean by "donated to the page cache" more > > precisely? > > > > Perhaps there is something better btrfs can do with its refcounting > > as it calls alloc_pages_bulk_array, then filemap_add_folio, and finally > > folio_attach_private. But I am not sure which of those refcounts we can > > (or should?) drop. > > Look at how readahead works for normal files; ignore what btrfs is doing > because it's probably wrong. I'm going to use the term "expected > refcount" because there may also be temporary speculative refcounts > from stale references (either GUP or pagecache). > > folio = filemap_alloc_folio(gfp_mask, 0); > (expected refcount 1) > ret = filemap_add_folio(mapping, folio, index + i, gfp_mask); > (expected refcount 1 + nr_pages) > read_pages(ractl); > aops->readahead(rac); > ... calls readahead_folio() which calls folio_put() > (expected refcount nr_pages) > > if filesystem calls folio_attach_private(), add one to the expected > refcount. > > That's it. Folios in the pagecache should have a refcount of nr_pages + > 1 if private data exists. Every caller who has called filemap_get_folio() > has an extra refcount. Every user mapping of a page adds one to the > refcount (and to the mapcount). Thank you for the extra explanation, that is very helpful. > > If btrfs superblocks have an extra refcount, they're wrong and should > have it put somewhere. I suppose by analogy btrfs should do a put sometime after filemap_add_folio of the metadata page. I'll look into making that change instead of this, since it seems like the expected refcount was correct after all and btrfs had an extra one. > > > At some point, I intend to reduce the number of atomic operations we do > by having filemap_add_folio() increment by one fewer than it currently > does, and removing the folio_put() in readahead_folio(). I haven't been > brave enough to do that yet. > > I also think we should not increment the refcount by nr_pages when we > add it to the page cache. Incrementing by one should be sufficient. > And that would mean that we can just delete the "folio_ref_add()" > in __filemap_add_folio().
