[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1683588.PnVoaTFAp1@blindfold>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:08:08 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: zhangjun <openzhangj@...il.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hch@....de,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ubifs: fix page_count in ->ubifs_migrate_page()
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2018, 23:00:00 CET schrieb Kirill A. Shutemov:
> > Let's wait a few days to give Kirill a chance to review, then I'll apply the patch.
>
> I don't remmeber much context now...
>
> Could you remind me why ubifs doesn't take additional pin when sets
> PG_private?
Because it does not use set_page_private(), it just sets the flag for
internal accounting purposes.
>From UBIFS docs:
* UBIFS uses 2 page flags: @PG_private and @PG_checked. @PG_private is set if
* the page is dirty and is used for optimization purposes - dirty pages are
* not budgeted so the flag shows that 'ubifs_write_end()' should not release
* the budget for this page. The @PG_checked flag is set if full budgeting is
* required for the page e.g., when it corresponds to a file hole or it is
* beyond the file size. The budgeting is done in 'ubifs_write_begin()', because
* it is OK to fail in this function, and the budget is released in
* 'ubifs_write_end()'. So the @PG_private and @PG_checked flags carry
* information about how the page was budgeted, to make it possible to release
* the budget properly.
> Migration is not the only place where the additional pin is implied.
> See all users of page_has_private() helper. Notably reclaim path.
Hmmm, I need to dig into that.
I this is a problem then f2fs suffers from it too.
At least from what I can tell from reading f2fs_migrate_page().
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists