On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:41:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:40:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > -static int expected_page_refs(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
> > +static int folio_expected_refs(struct address_space *mapping,
> > + struct folio *folio)
> > {
> > - int expected_count = 1;
> > + int refs = 1;
> > + if (!mapping)
> > + return refs;
> >
> > - if (mapping)
> > - expected_count += compound_nr(page) + page_has_private(page);
> > - return expected_count;
> > + refs += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > + if (folio_get_private(folio))
> > + refs++;
>
> Why not folio_has_private() (as seems to be used for later
> page_has_private() conversions) here?
We have a horrid confusion that I'm trying to clean up stealthily
without anyone noticing. I would have gotten away with it too if it
weren't for you pesky kids.
#define PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE \
(1UL << PG_private | 1UL << PG_private_2)
static inline int page_has_private(struct page *page)
{
return !!(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE);
}
So what this function is saying is that there is one extra refcount
expected on the struct page if PG_private _or_ PG_private_2 is set.
How are filesystems expected to manage their page's refcount with this
rule? Increment the refcount when setting PG_private unless
PG_private_2 is already set? Decrement the refcount when clearing
PG_private_2 unless PG_private is set?
This is garbage. IMO, PG_private_2 should have no bearing on the page's
refcount. Only btrfs and the netfs's use private_2 and neither of them
do anything to the refcount when setting/clearing it. So that's what
I'm implementing here.
> > +
> > + return refs;;
>
> Nit: extra ;
Oh, that's where it went ;-) I had a compile error due to a missing
semicolon at some point, and thought it was just a typo ...
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
