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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230108194034.1444764-1-agruenba@redhat.com> <20230108194034.1444764-9-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <20230108215911.GP1971568@dread.disaster.area> <CAHc6FU4z1nC8zdM8NvUyMqU29_J7_oNu1pvBHuOvR+M6gq7F0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230109225453.GQ1971568@dread.disaster.area> <CAHpGcM+urV5LYpTZQWTRoK6VWaLx0sxk3mDe_kd3VznMY9woVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8Q4FmhYehpQPZ3Z@magnolia> <Y8eeAmm1Vutq3Fc9@infradead.org> <Y8hCq+fIWgHfUufe@magnolia>
In-Reply-To: <Y8hCq+fIWgHfUufe@magnolia>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= <andreas.gruenbacher@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:57:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHpGcMJmi6gncj=a0NZrbm11AJoN5u0-F7GUnwFZRVbCL=Dpqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 08/10] iomap/xfs: Eliminate the iomap_valid handler
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:21:38PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > I don't have any objections to pulling everything except patches 8 and
> > > 10 for testing this week.
> >
> > That would be great.  I now have a series to return the ERR_PTR
> > from __filemap_get_folio which will cause a minor conflict, but
> > I think that's easy enough for Linux to handle.
>
> Ok, done.
>
> > >
> > > 1. Does zonefs need to revalidate mappings?  The mappings are 1:1 so I
> > > don't think it does, but OTOH zone pointer management might complicate
> > > that.
> >
> > Adding Damien.
> >
> > > 2. How about porting the writeback iomap validation to use this
> > > mechanism?  (I suspect Dave might already be working on this...)
> >
> > What is "this mechanism"?  Do you mean the here removed ->iomap_valid
> > ?   writeback calls into ->map_blocks for every block while under the
> > folio lock, so the validation can (and for XFS currently is) done
> > in that.  Moving it out into a separate method with extra indirect
> > functiona call overhead and interactions between the methods seems
> > like a retrograde step to me.
>
> Sorry, I should've been more specific -- can xfs writeback use the
> validity cookie in struct iomap and thereby get rid of struct
> xfs_writepage_ctx entirely?

Already asked and answered in the same thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230109225453.GQ1971568@dread.disaster.area/

> > > 2. Do we need to revalidate mappings for directio writes?  I think the
> > > answer is no (for xfs) because the ->iomap_begin call will allocate
> > > whatever blocks are needed and truncate/punch/reflink block on the
> > > iolock while the directio writes are pending, so you'll never end up
> > > with a stale mapping.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Er... yes as in "Yes, we *do* need to revalidate directio writes", or
> "Yes, your reasoning is correct"?
>
> --D