From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
This patch is inspired by a code review of fs codes which aims at
folio's extra refcnt that could introduce unwanted behavious when
judging refcnt, such as[1]. The change relys on the policy as the
LRU page with private data should take one corresponding refcnt.
[1]
long mapping_evict_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio)
{
...
//current code will misjudge here if there is one pte on the folio which
is be deemed as the one as folio's private
if (folio_ref_count(folio) >
folio_nr_pages(folio) + folio_has_private(folio) + 1)
return 0;
if (!filemap_release_folio(folio, 0))
return 0;
return remove_mapping(mapping, folio);
}
Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/write.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
index d074d0ceb4f0..80c6ded5f74c 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/write.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
@@ -772,8 +772,7 @@ static void nfs_inode_add_request(struct nfs_page *req)
nfs_lock_request(req);
spin_lock(&mapping->i_private_lock);
set_bit(PG_MAPPED, &req->wb_flags);
- folio_set_private(folio);
- folio->private = req;
+ folio_attach_private(folio, req);
spin_unlock(&mapping->i_private_lock);
atomic_long_inc(&nfsi->nrequests);
/* this a head request for a page group - mark it as having an
@@ -797,8 +796,7 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
spin_lock(&mapping->i_private_lock);
if (likely(folio)) {
- folio->private = NULL;
- folio_clear_private(folio);
+ folio_detach_private(folio);
clear_bit(PG_MAPPED, &req->wb_head->wb_flags);
}
spin_unlock(&mapping->i_private_lock);
--
2.25.1
