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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND] mm: shmem: implement POSIX_FADV_[WILL|DONT]NEED
 for shmem
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
CC:     Mark Hemment <markhemm@googlemail.com>, <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        <rientjes@google.com>, <mhocko@suse.com>, <surenb@google.com>,
        <shakeelb@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Charan Teja Reddy <charante@codeaurora.org>
References: <1641488717-13865-1-git-send-email-quic_charante@quicinc.com>
 <CANe_+UipVZRZeWqzXezacPaVb9UeC6a_ZhQp8GkrvftbRktotg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c66ba2e-1c65-3bdd-b91e-eb8391ec6dbf@quicinc.com>
 <61212ffd-3505-04d7-5403-932a10d676e7@quicinc.com>
 <Yd7VZId4IlKd4VpC@casper.infradead.org>
 <eb056201-a6e2-a58e-dd77-666f124d1896@quicinc.com>
From:   Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
Message-ID: <a31bdd1a-0fd8-7303-dc97-a2cf156f1d83@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:05:40 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eb056201-a6e2-a58e-dd77-666f124d1896@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello Matthew,

On 1/12/2022 7:05 PM, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>>>>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +       xas_for_each(&xas, page, end) {
>>>>> +               if (!xa_is_value(page))
>>>>> +                       continue;
>>>>> +               xas_pause(&xas);
>>>>> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               page = shmem_read_mapping_page(mapping, xas.xa_index);
>>>>> +               if (!IS_ERR(page))
>>>>> +                       put_page(page);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +               if (need_resched()) {
>>>>> +                       xas_pause(&xas);
>>>>> +                       cond_resched_rcu();
>>>>> +               }
>>>>> +       }
>>>>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>>> Even the xarray documentation says that: If most entries found during a
>>> walk require you to call xas_pause(), the xa_for_each() iterator may be
>>> more appropriate.
> Yes.  This should obviously be an xa_for_each() loop.

In one of your patch[1], where we used xarray iterator, though most of
the entries found requires to call xas_pause() but still endup in using
xas_for_each() rather than xa_for_each(). Then, Should this code be
changed to use xa_for_each()? The documentation also says that "The
xas_for_each() iterator will expand into more inline code than
xa_for_each()."

[1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/patch/20200819184850.24779-4-willy@infradead.org/