Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:49:51 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: buffer: check huge page size instead of single page
 for invalidatepage
Message-ID: <YXCrHxMF3ADO0n2x@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210917205731.262693-1-shy828301@gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkqmooOJ0A6JmGD+y5w_BcFtSAJtKBXpXxYNcYrzbpCrNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YUdL3lFLFHzC80Wt@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAHbLzkrPDDoOsPXQD3Y3Kbmex4ptYH+Ad_P1Ds_ateWb+65Rng@mail.gmail.com>
 <YUkCI2I085Sos/64@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAHbLzkoXrVJOfOrNhd8nQFRPHhRVYfVYSgLAO3DO7ZmvaZtDVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkrdXQfcudeeDHx8uUD55Rr=Aogi0pnQbBbP8bEZca8-7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkq2v+xpBweO-XG+uZiF3kvOFodKi4ioX=dzXpBYLtoZcw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkq2v+xpBweO-XG+uZiF3kvOFodKi4ioX=dzXpBYLtoZcw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > However, it still doesn't make too much sense to have thp_size passed
> > to do_invalidatepage(), then have PAGE_SIZE hardcoded in a BUG
> > assertion IMHO. So it seems this patch is still useful because
> > block_invalidatepage() is called by a few filesystems as well, for
> > example, ext4. Or I'm wondering whether we should call
> > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage of THP in truncate_cleanup_page()
> > since private is for each subpage IIUC.
> 
> Seems no interest?

No.  I have changes in this area as part of the folio patchset (where
we end up converting this to invalidate_folio).  I'm not really
interested in doing anything before that, since this shouldn't be
reachable today.

> Anyway the more I was staring at the code the more I thought calling
> do_invalidatepage() for each subpage made more sense. So, something
> like the below makes sense?

Definitely not.  We want to invalidate the entire folio at once.