linux-kernel - [RFC 23/23] xfs: set minimum order folio for page cache based on blocksize

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]

Message-Id: <20230915183848.1018717-24-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0200
From:   Pankaj Raghav <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To:     linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     p.raghav@...sung.com, david@...morbit.com, da.gomez@...sung.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        willy@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        chandan.babu@...cle.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com
Subject: [RFC 23/23] xfs: set minimum order folio for page cache based on blocksize

From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>

Enabling a block size > PAGE_SIZE is only possible if we can
ensure that the filesystem allocations for the block size is treated
atomically and we do this with the min order folio requirement for the
inode. This allows the page cache to treat this inode atomically even
if on the block layer we may treat it separately.

For instance, on x86 this enables eventual usage of block size > 4k
so long as you use a sector size set of 4k.

Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
index aacc7eec2497..81f07503f5ca 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ xfs_inode_alloc(
 	xfs_ino_t		ino)
 {
 	struct xfs_inode	*ip;
+	int			min_order = 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * XXX: If this didn't occur in transactions, we could drop GFP_NOFAIL
@@ -88,7 +89,8 @@ xfs_inode_alloc(
 	/* VFS doesn't initialise i_mode or i_state! */
 	VFS_I(ip)->i_mode = 0;
 	VFS_I(ip)->i_state = 0;
-	mapping_set_large_folios(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping);
+	min_order = max(min_order, ilog2(mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize) - PAGE_SHIFT);
+	mapping_set_folio_orders(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping, min_order, MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER);
 
 	XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active);
 	ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0);
@@ -313,6 +315,7 @@ xfs_reinit_inode(
 	dev_t			dev = inode->i_rdev;
 	kuid_t			uid = inode->i_uid;
 	kgid_t			gid = inode->i_gid;
+	int			min_order = 0;
 
 	error = inode_init_always(mp->m_super, inode);
 
@@ -323,7 +326,8 @@ xfs_reinit_inode(
 	inode->i_rdev = dev;
 	inode->i_uid = uid;
 	inode->i_gid = gid;
-	mapping_set_large_folios(inode->i_mapping);
+	min_order = max(min_order, ilog2(mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize) - PAGE_SHIFT);
+	mapping_set_folio_orders(inode->i_mapping, min_order, MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER);
 	return error;
 }
 
-- 
2.40.1