[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgNRSvcohDoLj3G2@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:50:50 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Soma Nakata <soma.nakata01@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: set folio->mapping to NULL before xas_store()
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:05:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:04:54 +0900 Soma Nakata <soma.nakata01@...il.com> wrote:
> > Functions such as __filemap_get_folio() check the truncation of
> > folios based on the mapping field. Therefore setting this field to NULL
> > earlier prevents unnecessary operations on already removed folios.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/filemap.c
> > +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> > @@ -139,11 +139,12 @@ static void page_cache_delete(struct address_space *mapping,
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
> >
> > + folio->mapping = NULL;
> > + /* Leave page->index set: truncation lookup relies upon it */
> > +
> > xas_store(&xas, shadow);
> > xas_init_marks(&xas);
> >
> > - folio->mapping = NULL;
> > - /* Leave page->index set: truncation lookup relies upon it */
> > mapping->nrpages -= nr;
> > }
>
> Seems at least harmless, but I wonder if it can really make any
> difference. Don't readers of folio->mapping lock the folio first?
I can't think of anywhere that doesn't ... most of the places that check
folio->mapping have "goto unlock" as the very next line. I don't think
this patch accomplishes anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists