On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 01:01:16PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 08:37:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > if (iomap_block_needs_zeroing(iter, pos)) {
> > > folio_zero_range(folio, poff, plen);
> > > + if (iomap->flags & IOMAP_F_READ_VERITY) {
> >
> > Wju do we need the new flag vs just testing that folio_ops and
> > folio_ops->verify_folio is non-NULL?
>
> Yes, it can be just test, haven't noticed that it's used only here,
> initially I used it in several places.
>
> >
> > > - ctx->bio = bio_alloc(iomap->bdev, bio_max_segs(nr_vecs),
> > > - REQ_OP_READ, gfp);
> > > + ctx->bio = bio_alloc_bioset(iomap->bdev, bio_max_segs(nr_vecs),
> > > + REQ_OP_READ, GFP_NOFS, &iomap_read_ioend_bioset);
> >
> > All other callers don't really need the larger bioset, so I'd avoid
> > the unconditional allocation here, but more on that later.
>
> Ok, make sense.
>
> >
> > > + ioend = container_of(ctx->bio, struct iomap_read_ioend,
> > > + read_inline_bio);
> > > + ioend->io_inode = iter->inode;
> > > + if (ctx->ops && ctx->ops->prepare_ioend)
> > > + ctx->ops->prepare_ioend(ioend);
> > > +
> >
> > So what we're doing in writeback and direct I/O, is to:
> >
> > a) have a submit_bio hook
> > b) allow the file system to then hook the bi_end_io caller
> > c) (only in direct O/O for now) allow the file system to provide
> > a bio_set to allocate from
>
> I see.
>
> >
> > I wonder if that also makes sense and keep all the deferral in the
> > file system. We'll need that for the btrfs iomap conversion anyway,
> > and it seems more flexible. The ioend processing would then move into
> > XFS.
> >
>
> Not sure what you mean here.
I /think/ Christoph is talking about allowing callers of iomap pagecache
operations to supply a custom submit_bio function and a bio_set so that
filesystems can add in their own post-IO processing and appropriately
sized (read: minimum you can get away with) bios. I imagine btrfs has
quite a lot of (read) ioend processing they need to do, as will xfs now
that you're adding fsverity.
> > > @@ -156,6 +160,11 @@ struct iomap_folio_ops {
> > > * locked by the iomap code.
> > > */
> > > bool (*iomap_valid)(struct inode *inode, const struct iomap *iomap);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Verify folio when successfully read
> > > + */
> > > + bool (*verify_folio)(struct folio *folio, loff_t pos, unsigned int len);
Any reason why we shouldn't return the usual negative errno?
> > Why isn't this in iomap_readpage_ops?
> >
>
> Yes, it can be. But it appears to me to be more relevant to
> _folio_ops, any particular reason to move it there? Don't mind
> moving it to iomap_readpage_ops.
I think the point is that this is a general "check what we just read"
hook, so it could be in readpage_ops since we're never going to need to
re-validate verity contents, right? Hence it could be in readpage_ops
instead of the general iomap_folio_ops.
<shrug> Is there a use case for ->verify_folio that isn't a read post-
processing step?
--D
> --
> - Andrey
>
