Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:11:40 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
        ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] mm/migrate: Convert expected_page_refs() to
 folio_expected_refs()
Message-ID: <Yp9cnCaZ1O4qHFEp@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220606204050.2625949-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20220606204050.2625949-6-willy@infradead.org>
 <Yp9VpZDsUEAZHEuy@bfoster>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yp9VpZDsUEAZHEuy@bfoster>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:41:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:40:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > -static int expected_page_refs(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
> > +static int folio_expected_refs(struct address_space *mapping,
> > +		struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -	int expected_count = 1;
> > +	int refs = 1;
> > +	if (!mapping)
> > +		return refs;
> >  
> > -	if (mapping)
> > -		expected_count += compound_nr(page) + page_has_private(page);
> > -	return expected_count;
> > +	refs += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > +	if (folio_get_private(folio))
> > +		refs++;
> 
> Why not folio_has_private() (as seems to be used for later
> page_has_private() conversions) here?

We have a horrid confusion that I'm trying to clean up stealthily
without anyone noticing.  I would have gotten away with it too if it
weren't for you pesky kids.

#define PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE                              \
        (1UL << PG_private | 1UL << PG_private_2)

static inline int page_has_private(struct page *page)
{
        return !!(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE);
}

So what this function is saying is that there is one extra refcount
expected on the struct page if PG_private _or_ PG_private_2 is set.

How are filesystems expected to manage their page's refcount with this
rule?  Increment the refcount when setting PG_private unless
PG_private_2 is already set?  Decrement the refcount when clearing
PG_private_2 unless PG_private is set?

This is garbage.  IMO, PG_private_2 should have no bearing on the page's
refcount.  Only btrfs and the netfs's use private_2 and neither of them
do anything to the refcount when setting/clearing it.  So that's what
I'm implementing here.

> > +
> > +	return refs;;
> 
> Nit: extra ;

Oh, that's where it went ;-)  I had a compile error due to a missing
semicolon at some point, and thought it was just a typo ...