From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E79C36014 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 16:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A20A10E61C; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 16:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4906B10E61C for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 16:26:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=LNObDbT4ATxiT4jSsqJRv32cSZfqzQ9KW0j8T6d9+NE=; b=Fj+uYHb+jju1ndZ3029s90cXHJ RjOZokodxO+o8OZVrk6AydFnf0CTEyq0g1K/rpjgoFZhSJag7dBNSYmOjwNiFay88aHcbxNSrBFDm A801t3F9NemVnDQAYUTGQ4rWAHZwebMcwF5QUbgdrEDA3HRU4iYyL4ZFQ9zm3Gc1K/51AwaGOdNUL MsJcoDB06ZRPica41iZmYHoWFNNtiPCzrCssrlP2qSN6BLfVouUhhnAmmNMjpPuQj1FIEhKTajgsN AUTE5zQGuSUNhoAiry4WwmiEATZJmbBWelTvz8jcKNCckGHwz50bGISpQaB75mzLlC3Aq/DbApwRW b7I7P7QA==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tzeRn-00000007dTF-1bdv; Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:26:43 +0000 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:26:43 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= Cc: Fan Ni , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] fs: Remove aops->writepage Message-ID: References: <20250307135414.2987755-1-willy@infradead.org> <20250307135414.2987755-12-willy@infradead.org> <9937a6346feccb7ab739aff63a084f63f3ad4382.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9937a6346feccb7ab739aff63a084f63f3ad4382.camel@linux.intel.com> X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 09:10:38AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote: > On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 22:30 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > This patch fixes the compilation problem.  But I don't understand why > > it's messing with the reclaim flag.  Thomas, can you explain? > > Hi, Sorry for not responding earlier. The patch that uses writepage() > here has been around for quite some time waiting for reviews / acks so > I failed to notice that it's going away. My turn to be sorry for dropping this conversation ... > Anyway the reclaim flag clearing follows that of pageout() in vmscan.c > which was also the case for the i915_gem_shmem.c usage in > __shmem_writeback(). My understanding was that if the writeback was > already completed at that point, the reclaim flag was no longer > desirable. I think the question is really why you're setting it in the first place. Setting the reclaim flag indicates that you want the folio removed from the page cache as soon as possible. Other changes in flight are about to make this more aggressive -- instead of waiting for the folio to reach the end of the writeout queue, it'll be removed upon I/O completion. It doesn't seem to me that this is what you actually want for TTM, but perhaps I've misunderstood the intent of the code.