Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 20:53:47 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>, chao@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        fengnanchang@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: Convert f2fs_write_cache_pages() to use
 filemap_get_folios_tag()
Message-ID: <Y7SV23/k39ygIj8/@casper.infradead.org>
References: <0a95ba7b-9335-ce03-0f47-5d9f4cce988f@kernel.org>
 <20221212191317.9730-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
 <Y5tvQKT8HWxngEnc@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5tvQKT8HWxngEnc@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:02:24AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/12, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > @@ -2994,13 +2998,38 @@ static int f2fs_write_cache_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >  		tag_pages_for_writeback(mapping, index, end);
> >  	done_index = index;
> >  	while (!done && !retry && (index <= end)) {
> > -		nr_pages = find_get_pages_range_tag(mapping, &index, end,
> > -				tag, F2FS_ONSTACK_PAGES, pages);
> > -		if (nr_pages == 0)
> > +		nr_pages = 0;
> > +again:
> > +		nr_folios = filemap_get_folios_tag(mapping, &index, end,
> > +				tag, &fbatch);
> 
> Can't folio handle this internally with F2FS_ONSTACK_PAGES and pages?

I really want to discourage filesystems from doing this kind of thing.
The folio_batch is the natural size for doing batches of work, and
having the consistency across all these APIs of passing in a folio_batch
is quite valuable.  I understand f2fs wants to get more memory in a
single batch, but the right way to do that is to use larger folios.