Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/shmem: make find_get_pages_range() work for huge page
From:   William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190110030838.84446-1-yuzhao@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 04:43:57 -0700
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7BE64E0-8F88-46AC-A330-E1AB23A50073@oracle.com>
References: <20190110030838.84446-1-yuzhao@google.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
>=20
> find_get_pages_range() and find_get_pages_range_tag() already
> correctly increment reference count on head when seeing compound
> page, but they may still use page index from tail. Page index
> from tail is always zero, so these functions don't work on huge
> shmem. This hasn't been a problem because, AFAIK, nobody calls
> these functions on (huge) shmem. Fix them anyway just in case.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
> ---
> mm/filemap.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 81adec8ee02c..cf5fd773314a 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -1704,7 +1704,7 @@ unsigned find_get_pages_range(struct =
address_space *mapping, pgoff_t *start,
>=20
> 		pages[ret] =3D page;
> 		if (++ret =3D=3D nr_pages) {
> -			*start =3D page->index + 1;
> +			*start =3D xas.xa_index + 1;
> 			goto out;
> 		}
> 		continue;
> @@ -1850,7 +1850,7 @@ unsigned find_get_pages_range_tag(struct =
address_space *mapping, pgoff_t *index,
>=20
> 		pages[ret] =3D page;
> 		if (++ret =3D=3D nr_pages) {
> -			*index =3D page->index + 1;
> +			*index =3D xas.xa_index + 1;
> 			goto out;
> 		}
> 		continue;
> --=20

While this works, it seems like this would be more readable for future =
maintainers were it to
instead squirrel away the value for *start/*index when ret was zero on =
the first iteration through
the loop.

Though xa_index is designed to hold the first index of the entry, it =
seems inappropriate to have
these routines deference elements of xas directly; I guess it depends on =
how opaque we want to keep
xas and struct xa_state.

Does anyone else have a feeling one way or the other? I could be =
persuaded either way.=