Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-2506-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
	Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
	Kingdom.
	Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZgRpPd1Ado-0_iYx@casper.infradead.org>
References: <ZgRpPd1Ado-0_iYx@casper.infradead.org> <2318298.1711551844@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <2506007.1711562145@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
    Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
    Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
    Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
    Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
    Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
    Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
    linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netfs@lists.linux.dev,
    v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
    ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
    linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org,
    linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] mm, netfs: Provide a means of invalidation without using launder_folio
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2541307.1711571866.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:37:46 +0000
Message-ID: <2541308.1711571866@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> > +	/* Prevent new folios from being added to the inode. */
> > +	filemap_invalidate_lock(mapping);
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that the callers wouldn't want to hold that lock
> over a call to this function.  I guess you're working on the callers,
> so you'd know better than I would, but I would have used lockdep to
> assert that invalidate_lock was held.

I'm not sure.  None of the places that look like they'd be calling this
currently take that lock (though possibly they should).

Also, should I provide it with explicit range, I wonder?

> > +	if (unlikely(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&mapping->i_mmap.rb_root)))
> > +		unmap_mapping_pages(mapping, 0, ULONG_MAX, false);
> 
> Is this optimisation worth it?

Perhaps not.

David