Hello Matthew,
Could you please review this series. I found this during code review and
I think these can/should go in as well along with other folio changes queued up
for 6.4 (after some testing).
Also had a query w.r.t your change [1]. I couldn't understand this change diff
from [1]. Given if we are making the conversion to folio, then shouldn't we do
len = size - folio_pos(pos), instead of len = size & ~PAGE_MASK
Could you please tell if the current change in [1] is kept deliberately?
At other places you did make len as size - folio_pos(pos) which removes the
PAGE_SIZE assumption.
-static int mpage_submit_page(struct mpage_da_data *mpd, struct page *page)
+static int mpage_submit_folio(struct mpage_da_data *mpd, struct folio *folio)
{
- int len;
+ size_t len;
<...>
size = i_size_read(mpd->inode);
- if (page->index == size >> PAGE_SHIFT &&
+ len = folio_size(folio);
+ if (folio_pos(folio) + len > size &&
!ext4_verity_in_progress(mpd->inode))
len = size & ~PAGE_MASK;
- else
- len = PAGE_SIZE;
- err = ext4_bio_write_page(&mpd->io_submit, page, len);
+ err = ext4_bio_write_page(&mpd->io_submit, &folio->page, len);
if (!err)
mpd->wbc->nr_to_write--;
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/[email protected]/
Note: I haven't yet tested this series completely. I mainly first wanted to get
some initial inputs from Matthew on this one before I do any serious fstests
testing of the changes. If the changes are in the right direction, I shall
do some testing before sending next revision.
Ritesh Harjani (IBM) (4):
ext4: kill unused function ext4_journalled_write_inline_data
ext4: Change remaining tracepoints to use folio
ext4: Make mpage_journal_page_buffers use folio
ext4: Make ext4_write_inline_data_end() use folio
fs/ext4/ext4.h | 10 ++-----
fs/ext4/inline.c | 27 +-----------------
fs/ext4/inode.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++------------------
include/trace/events/ext4.h | 26 ++++++++---------
4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
--
2.39.2
Hey Ritesh,
My understanding is that you are intending on sending a revised
version of this patch set; is that correct? Thanks!!
- Ted
"Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]> writes:
> Hey Ritesh,
>
> My understanding is that you are intending on sending a revised
> version of this patch set; is that correct? Thanks!!
>
> - Ted
Yes, Ted. I had some open questions to willy mainly in Patch-3.
Let me rebase this and will put the queries in the rfcv2.
-ritesh