[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXCrHxMF3ADO0n2x@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:49:51 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hao Sun <sunhao.th@...il.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: buffer: check huge page size instead of single page
for invalidatepage
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > However, it still doesn't make too much sense to have thp_size passed
> > to do_invalidatepage(), then have PAGE_SIZE hardcoded in a BUG
> > assertion IMHO. So it seems this patch is still useful because
> > block_invalidatepage() is called by a few filesystems as well, for
> > example, ext4. Or I'm wondering whether we should call
> > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage of THP in truncate_cleanup_page()
> > since private is for each subpage IIUC.
>
> Seems no interest?
No. I have changes in this area as part of the folio patchset (where
we end up converting this to invalidate_folio). I'm not really
interested in doing anything before that, since this shouldn't be
reachable today.
> Anyway the more I was staring at the code the more I thought calling
> do_invalidatepage() for each subpage made more sense. So, something
> like the below makes sense?
Definitely not. We want to invalidate the entire folio at once.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists