linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/7] filemap: Change mapping_set_folio_min_order() -> mapping_set_folio

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: <20240425144741.houv6uoflhwmcc2u@quentin>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:47:41 +0000
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	willy@...radead.org, dchinner@...hat.com, tytso@....edu, hch@....de,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, nilay@...ux.ibm.com,
	ritesh.list@...il.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, p.raghav@...sung.com,
	jbongio@...gle.com, okiselev@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/7] filemap: Change mapping_set_folio_min_order() ->
 mapping_set_folio_orders()

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 02:39:18PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> Borrowed from:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20240213093713.1753368-2-kernel@pankajraghav.com/
> (credit given in due course)
> 
> We will need to be able to only use a single folio order for buffered
> atomic writes, so allow the mapping folio order min and max be set.

> 
> We still have the restriction of not being able to support order-1
> folios - it will be required to lift this limit at some stage.

This is already supported upstream for file-backed folios:
commit: 8897277acfef7f70fdecc054073bea2542fc7a1b

> index fc8eb9c94e9c..c22455fa28a1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> @@ -363,9 +363,10 @@ static inline void mapping_set_gfp_mask(struct address_space *m, gfp_t mask)
>  #endif
>  
>  /*
> - * mapping_set_folio_min_order() - Set the minimum folio order
> + * mapping_set_folio_orders() - Set the minimum and max folio order

In the new series (sorry forgot to CC you), I added a new helper called
mapping_set_folio_order_range() which does something similar to avoid
confusion based on willy's suggestion:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240425113746.335530-3-kernel@pankajraghav.com/

mapping_set_folio_min_order() also sets max folio order to be 
MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER order anyway. So no need of explicitly calling it
here?

>  /**
> @@ -400,7 +406,7 @@ static inline void mapping_set_folio_min_order(struct address_space *mapping,
>   */
>  static inline void mapping_set_large_folios(struct address_space *mapping)
>  {
> -	mapping_set_folio_min_order(mapping, 0);
> +	mapping_set_folio_orders(mapping, 0, MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER);
>  }
>  
>  static inline unsigned int mapping_max_folio_order(struct address_space *mapping)
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index d81530b0aac0..d5effe50ddcb 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -1898,9 +1898,15 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
>  no_page:
>  	if (!folio && (fgp_flags & FGP_CREAT)) {
>  		unsigned int min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping);
> -		unsigned int order = max(min_order, FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags));
> +		unsigned int max_order = mapping_max_folio_order(mapping);
> +		unsigned int order = FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags);
>  		int err;
>  
> +		if (order > max_order)
> +			order = max_order;
> +		else if (order < min_order)
> +			order = max_order;

order = min_order; ?
--
Pankaj