From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (dggsgout11.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A435E1E86A; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723517371; cv=none; b=XEzZdZDy6rc1bRSaFfwrFQTVTZEgZDQUpWO3Otu/sAmsjeuwLY/ru7gYYnY1X3FHtHDuJJ3VtPWVqQNcBiic4Z9DSEnVPCVeecCzXMpSHLP+5PSmWr3pOufVBBl95Jk/cU42q7PTpakDzcg3r+RClYod3mSGRmPANlIHEXjypkQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723517371; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hQKnZrBwQM09zuJSipp9urEd+Q+xJzQsaB5ZluAZ2UU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=dPziTh8A7xroTv/h8onfOWYITX1WVAjCbj0et1tjZyqk3v20oAV1YyMR5LV4cIlhMEaEsYbsHponYRowNc05iivtLbU8RxKHpV00ljyN3XsKBCnBce0ZS2UTyjP0bbTxX1ksSv76/rgnLqXskbT0ymUscCyC9/TN3WXbhLUcO/s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.93.142]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WjbSV36mNz4f3jZQ; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:49:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.128]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E1A1A07BA; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:49:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.179.80] (unknown [10.174.179.80]) by APP4 (Coremail) with SMTP id gCh0CgBnj4WxybpmnD0rBg--.782S3; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:49:23 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] iomap: correct the dirty length in page mkwrite To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, brauner@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, jack@suse.cz, willy@infradead.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com References: <20240812121159.3775074-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com> <20240812121159.3775074-5-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com> <20240812164536.GE6043@frogsfrogsfrogs> From: Zhang Yi Message-ID: <0ee2814f-2878-bcff-7baf-703327091805@huaweicloud.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:49:21 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20240812164536.GE6043@frogsfrogsfrogs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID:gCh0CgBnj4WxybpmnD0rBg--.782S3 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7ury5AFW7WFy7tr4xXw1DWrg_yoW8Kw1DpF WDKFWqkr48J3Zruwn3Ar1Yvr10kr9xXw40yF17W343AFn8ur12gr1UK3Wj9F1xKr13Aw4S vF4jqa4xXFyjyrJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9Ib4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x 0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG 6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JM4IIrI8v6xkF7I0E8cxan2IY04v7Mxk0xIA0c2IE e2xFo4CEbIxvr21lc7CjxVAaw2AFwI0_Jw0_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4I kC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWU WwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1q6r43MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr 0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWU JVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJb IYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUF1v3UUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: d1lo6xhdqjqx5xdzvxpfor3voofrz/ On 2024/8/13 0:45, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 08:11:57PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote: >> From: Zhang Yi >> >> When doing page mkwrite, iomap_folio_mkwrite_iter() dirty the entire >> folio by folio_mark_dirty() even the map length is shorter than one >> folio. However, on the filesystem with more than one blocks per folio, >> we'd better to only set counterpart block's dirty bit according to >> iomap_length(), so open code folio_mark_dirty() and pass the correct >> length. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi >> --- >> fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c >> index 79031b7517e5..ac762de9a27f 100644 >> --- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c >> +++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c >> @@ -1492,7 +1492,10 @@ static loff_t iomap_folio_mkwrite_iter(struct iomap_iter *iter, >> block_commit_write(&folio->page, 0, length); >> } else { >> WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_uptodate(folio)); >> - folio_mark_dirty(folio); >> + >> + ifs_alloc(iter->inode, folio, 0); >> + iomap_set_range_dirty(folio, 0, length); >> + filemap_dirty_folio(iter->inode->i_mapping, folio); > > Is it correct to be doing a lot more work by changing folio_mark_dirty > to filemap_dirty_folio? Now pagefaults call __mark_inode_dirty which > they did not before. Also, the folio itself must be marked dirty if any > of the ifs bitmap is marked dirty, so I don't understand the change > here. > This change is just open code iomap_dirty_folio() and correct the length that passing to iomap_set_range_dirty(). bool iomap_dirty_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio) { struct inode *inode = mapping->host; size_t len = folio_size(folio); ... ifs_alloc(inode, folio, 0); iomap_set_range_dirty(folio, 0, len); return filemap_dirty_folio(mapping, folio); } Before this change, the code also call filemap_dirty_folio() (though folio_mark_dirty()->iomap_dirty_folio()->filemap_dirty_folio()), so it call __mark_inode_dirty() too. After this change, filemap_dirty_folio()-> folio_test_set_dirty() will mark the folio dirty. Hence there is no difference between the two points you mentioned. Am I missing something? Thanks, Yi. > >> } >> >> return length; >> -- >> 2.39.2 >> >>