From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] afs: Stop implementing ->writepage()
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:17:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221121071704.GC23882@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <166876785552.222254.4403222906022558715.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:37:35AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> A hint flag is added to the writeback_control struct so that a filesystem
> can say that the write is triggered by write_begin seeing a conflicting
> write. This causes do_writepages() to do a single pass of the loop only.
Not a huge fan of that, especially as write_begin is not really a
method, but just an awkward hook in legacy write implementations.
I'd much rather have a private pointer in the writeback_control and
make the behavior implementation specific. It will need to be split
into a separate patch with proper documentation and a CC to linux-mm.
> (1) afs_write_back_from_locked_folio() could be called directly rather
> than calling filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), but that would avoid the
> control group stuff that wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode() and co. seem to
> do. Do I actually need to do this?
That would be much preferred over the for_write_begin hack, given that
write_begin really isn't a well defined method but a hacky hook for
legacy write implementations.
> (2) afs_writepages_region() has a loop in it to generate multiple writes.
> do_writepages() also acquired a loop[2] which will also generate
> multiple writes. Should I remove the loop from
> afs_writepages_region() and leave it to the caller of ->writepages()?
Dropping out of ->writpages inside a page does seem a bit problematic,
so you probably want to keep the loop.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-21 7:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-18 10:37 [RFC PATCH] afs: Stop implementing ->writepage() David Howells
2022-11-21 7:17 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-11-21 8:28 ` David Howells
2022-11-21 8:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221121071704.GC23882@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.dionne@auristor.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.