Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> But I also think it's strange in another way, with that odd placement of
> 
>         mapping_clear_release_always(inode->i_mapping);
> 
> at inode eviction time. That just feels very random.

I was under the impression that a warning got splashed if unexpected
address_space flags were set when ->evict_inode() returned.  I may be thinking
of page flags.  If it doesn't, fine, this isn't required.

> Similarly, that change to shrink_folio_list() looks strange, with the
> nasty folio_needs_release() helper. It seems entirely pointless, with
> the use then being
> 
>                 if (folio_needs_release(folio)) {
>                         if (!filemap_release_folio(folio, sc->gfp_mask))
>                                 goto activate_locked;

Unfortunately, that can't be simply folded down.  It actually does something
extra if folio_has_private() was set, filemap_release_folio() succeeds but
there was no mapping:

                 * Rarely, folios can have buffers and no ->mapping.
                 * These are the folios which were not successfully
                 * invalidated in truncate_cleanup_folio().  We try to
                 * drop those buffers here and if that worked, and the
                 * folio is no longer mapped into process address space
                 * (refcount == 1) it can be freed.  Otherwise, leave
                 * the folio on the LRU so it is swappable.

Possibly I could split the if-statement and make it two separate cases:

                /*
                 * If the folio has buffers, try to free the buffer
                 * mappings associated with this folio. If we succeed
                 * we try to free the folio as well.
                 *
                 * We do this even if the folio is dirty.
                 * filemap_release_folio() does not perform I/O, but it
                 * is possible for a folio to have the dirty flag set,
                 * but it is actually clean (all its buffers are clean).
                 * This happens if the buffers were written out directly,
                 * with submit_bh(). ext3 will do this, as well as
                 * the blockdev mapping.  filemap_release_folio() will
                 * discover that cleanness and will drop the buffers
                 * and mark the folio clean - it can be freed.
                 */
                if (!filemap_release_folio(folio, sc->gfp_mask))
                        goto activate_locked;

filemap_release_folio() will return true if folio_has_private() is false,
which would allow us to reach the next part, which we would then skip.

                /*
                 * Rarely, folios can have buffers and no ->mapping.
                 * These are the folios which were not successfully
                 * invalidated in truncate_cleanup_folio().  We try to
                 * drop those buffers here and if that worked, and the
                 * folio is no longer mapped into process address space
                 * (refcount == 1) it can be freed.  Otherwise, leave
                 * the folio on the LRU so it is swappable.
                 */
                if (!mapping && folio_has_private(folio) &&
                    folio_ref_count(folio) == 1) {
                        folio_unlock(folio);
                        if (folio_put_testzero(folio))
                                goto free_it;
                         /*
                          * rare race with speculative reference.
                          * the speculative reference will free
                          * this folio shortly, so we may
                          * increment nr_reclaimed here (and
                          * leave it off the LRU).
                          */
                        nr_reclaimed += nr_pages;
                        continue;
                }

But that will malfunction if try_to_free_buffers(), as called from
folio_has_private(), manages to clear the private bits.  I wonder if it might
be possible to fold this bit into filemap_release_folio() somehow.

I really need a three-state return from filemap_release_folio() - maybe:

        0       couldn't release
        1       released
        2       there was no private

The ordinary "if (filemap_release_folio()) { ... }" would work as expected.
shrink_folio_list() could do something different between case 1 and case 2.

> And the change to mm/filemap.c is completely unacceptable in all
> forms, and this added test
> 
> +       if ((!mapping || !mapping_release_always(mapping)) &&
> +           !folio_test_private(folio) &&
> +           !folio_test_private_2(folio))
> +               return true;
> 
> will not be accepted even during the merge window. That code makes no
> sense what-so-ever, and is in no way acceptable.
>
> That code makes no sense what-so-ever. Why isn't it using
> "folio_has_private()"?

It should be, yes.

> Why is this done as an open-coded - and *badly* so - version of
> !folio_needs_release() that you for some reason made private to mm/vmscan.c?

Yeah, in retrospect, I should have put that in mm/internal.h.

David
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs

Reply via email to