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, 27 Jun 2023 15:48:22 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] writeback: Factor should_writeback_folio() out of
 write_cache_pages()
Message-ID: <ZJr2tr30FhGcwVR3@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230626173521.459345-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20230626173521.459345-4-willy@infradead.org>
 <ZJphl4Ws4QzitTny@infradead.org>
 <ZJrFEto4BbLB+ubt@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZJrFEto4BbLB+ubt@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:16:34PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> This might be a good point to share that I'm considering (eventually)
> not taking the folio lock here.
> 
> My plan looks something like this (not fully baked):
> 
> truncation (and similar) paths currently lock the folio,  They would both
> lock the folio _and_ claim that they were doing writeback on the folio.
> 
> Filesystems would receive the folio from the writeback iterator with
> the writeback flag already set.
> 
> 
> This allows, eg, folio mapping/unmapping to take place completely
> independent of writeback.  That seems like a good thing; I can't see
> why the two should be connected.

Ah, i_size is a problem.  With an extending write, i_size is updated
while holding the folio lock.  If we're writing back a partial folio,
we zero the tail.  That must not race with an extending write.  So
either we'd need to take both the folio lock & wb_lock when updating
i_size, or we'd need to take both the lock and wb_lock when writing
back the last page of a file.