Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] iomap: Remove unnecessary test from iomap_release_folio()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [add ritesh]
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 02:02:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>> The check for the folio being under writeback is unnecessary; the caller
>> has checked this and the folio is locked, so the folio cannot be under
>> writeback at this point.
>> 
>> The comment is somewhat misleading in that it talks about one specific
>> situation in which we can see a dirty folio.  There are others, so change
>> the comment to explain why we can't release the iomap_page.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 9 ++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
>> index 1cb905140528..7aa3009f907f 100644
>> --- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
>> @@ -483,12 +483,11 @@ bool iomap_release_folio(struct folio *folio, gfp_t gfp_flags)
>>  			folio_size(folio));
>>  
>>  	/*
>> -	 * mm accommodates an old ext3 case where clean folios might
>> -	 * not have had the dirty bit cleared.  Thus, it can send actual
>> -	 * dirty folios to ->release_folio() via shrink_active_list();
>> -	 * skip those here.
>> +	 * If the folio is dirty, we refuse to release our metadata because
>> +	 * it may be partially dirty.  Once we track per-block dirty state,
>> +	 * we can release the metadata if every block is dirty.
>
> Ritesh: I'm assuming that implementing this will be part of your v12 series?

No, if it's any optimization, then I think we can take it up later too,
not in v12 please (I have been doing some extensive testing of current series).
Also let me understand it a bit more.

@willy,
Is this what you are suggesting? So this is mainly to free up some
memory for iomap_folio_state structure then right?
But then whenever we are doing a writeback, we anyway would be
allocating iomap_folio_state() and marking all the bits dirty. Isn't it
sub-optimal then?  

@@ -489,8 +489,11 @@ bool iomap_release_folio(struct folio *folio, gfp_t gfp_flags)
         * it may be partially dirty.  Once we track per-block dirty state,
         * we can release the metadata if every block is dirty.
         */
-       if (folio_test_dirty(folio))
+       if (folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
+               if (ifs_is_fully_dirty(folio, ifs))
+                       iomap_page_release(folio);
                return false;
+       }
        iomap_page_release(folio);
        return true;
 }

(Ignore the old and new apis naming in above. It is just to get an idea)

-ritesh

>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> --D
>
>>  	 */
>> -	if (folio_test_dirty(folio) || folio_test_writeback(folio))
>> +	if (folio_test_dirty(folio))
>>  		return false;
>>  	iomap_page_release(folio);
>>  	return true;
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>> 



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux