linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/23] f2fs: Convert f2fs_fsync_node_pages() to use filemap_get_folios

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:51:50 -0800
From:   Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>
To:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        jaegeuk@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/23] f2fs: Convert f2fs_fsync_node_pages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:31 PM Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 1:25 PM Vishal Moola (Oracle)
> <vishal.moola@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Convert function to use a folio_batch instead of pagevec. This is in
> > preparation for the removal of find_get_pages_range_tag().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Moola (Oracle) <vishal.moola@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/node.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > index 983572f23896..e8b72336c096 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > @@ -1728,12 +1728,12 @@ int f2fs_fsync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct inode *inode,
> >                         unsigned int *seq_id)
> >  {
> >         pgoff_t index;
> > -       struct pagevec pvec;
> > +       struct folio_batch fbatch;
> >         int ret = 0;
> >         struct page *last_page = NULL;
> >         bool marked = false;
> >         nid_t ino = inode->i_ino;
> > -       int nr_pages;
> > +       int nr_folios;
> >         int nwritten = 0;
> >
> >         if (atomic) {
> > @@ -1742,20 +1742,21 @@ int f2fs_fsync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct inode *inode,
> >                         return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(last_page);
> >         }
> >  retry:
> > -       pagevec_init(&pvec);
> > +       folio_batch_init(&fbatch);
> >         index = 0;
> >
> > -       while ((nr_pages = pagevec_lookup_tag(&pvec, NODE_MAPPING(sbi), &index,
> > -                               PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))) {
> > +       while ((nr_folios = filemap_get_folios_tag(NODE_MAPPING(sbi), &index,
> > +                                       (pgoff_t)-1, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY,
> > +                                       &fbatch))) {
> >                 int i;
> >
> > -               for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> > -                       struct page *page = pvec.pages[i];
> > +               for (i = 0; i < nr_folios; i++) {
> > +                       struct page *page = &fbatch.folios[i]->page;
> >                         bool submitted = false;
> >
> >                         if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) {
> >                                 f2fs_put_page(last_page, 0);
> > -                               pagevec_release(&pvec);
> > +                               folio_batch_release(&fbatch);
> >                                 ret = -EIO;
> >                                 goto out;
> >                         }
> > @@ -1821,7 +1822,7 @@ int f2fs_fsync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct inode *inode,
> >                                 break;
> >                         }
> >                 }
> > -               pagevec_release(&pvec);
> > +               folio_batch_release(&fbatch);
> >                 cond_resched();
> >
> >                 if (ret || marked)
> > --
> > 2.36.1
> >
>
> Following up on these f2fs patches (11/23, 12/23, 13/23, 14/23, 15/23,
> 16/23). Does anyone have time to review them this week?

Chao, thank you for taking a look at some of these patches!
If you have time to look over the remaining patches (14, 15, 16)
feedback on those would be appreciated as well.