On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 01:36:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:34:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Now we have a locked folio, before we do anything with it we need to
> > + * check that the iomap we have cached is not stale. The inode extent
> > + * mapping can change due to concurrent IO in flight (e.g.
> > + * IOMAP_UNWRITTEN state can change and memory reclaim could have
> > + * reclaimed a previously partially written page at this index after IO
> > + * completion before this write reaches this file offset) and hence we
> > + * could do the wrong thing here (zero a page range incorrectly or fail
> > + * to zero) and corrupt data.
> > + */
> > + if (ops->iomap_valid) {
> > + bool iomap_valid = ops->iomap_valid(iter->inode, &iter->iomap);
> > +
> > + if (!iomap_valid) {
> > + iter->iomap.flags |= IOMAP_F_STALE;
> > + status = 0;
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> So the design so far has been that everything that applies at a page (or
> now folio) level goes into iomap_page_ops, not iomap_ops which is just
> the generic iteration, and I think we should probably do it that way.
I disagree here -- IMHO the sequence number is an attribute of the
iomapping, not the folio.
> I'm a little disappointed that we need two callout almost next to each
> other, but given that we need to validate with the folio locked, and
> gfs2 wants the callback with the folio unlocked I think we have to do
> it that.
<nod>
--D
