Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197065-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 08:27:32 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	brauner@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, chandanbabu@kernel.org,
	jack@suse.cz, willy@infradead.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
	chengzhihao1@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 5/8] xfs: refactor the truncating order
Message-ID: <20240531152732.GM52987@frogsfrogsfrogs>
References: <20240529095206.2568162-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
 <20240529095206.2568162-6-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZlnRODP_b8bhXOEE@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZlnRODP_b8bhXOEE@infradead.org>

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 06:31:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +	write_back = newsize > ip->i_disk_size && oldsize != ip->i_disk_size;
> 
> Maybe need_writeback would be a better name for the variable?  Also no
> need to initialize it to false at declaration time if it is
> unconditionally set here.

This variable captures whether or not we need to write dirty file tail
data because we're extending the ondisk EOF, right?

I don't really like long names like any good 1980s C programmer, but
maybe we should name this something like "extending_ondisk_eof"?

	if (newsize > ip->i_disk_size && oldsize != ip->i_disk_size)
		extending_ondisk_eof = true;

	...

	if (did_zeroing || extending_ondisk_eof)
		filemap_write_and_wait_range(...);

Hm?

> > +		/*
> > +		 * Updating i_size after writing back to make sure the zeroed
> > +		 * blocks could been written out, and drop all the page cache
> > +		 * range that beyond blocksize aligned new EOF block.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * We've already locked out new page faults, so now we can
> > +		 * safely remove pages from the page cache knowing they won't
> > +		 * get refaulted until we drop the XFS_MMAP_EXCL lock after the

And can we correct the comment here too?

"...until we drop XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL after the extent manipulations..."

--D

> > +		 * extent manipulations are complete.
> > +		 */
> > +		i_size_write(inode, newsize);
> > +		truncate_pagecache(inode, roundup_64(newsize, blocksize));
> 
> Any reason this open codes truncate_setsize()?
> 
>