From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 5A0D4296152 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:16:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749564970; cv=none; b=BYO7YfXvGjQ3NXOjuNEIia8TPkV8aloQGo6xIJW6CQ/WEWNhPsKtYhJNLfiaHctHAT4AX2JjPRPaC0iedI/j/XRakbPJiJ1W+M62BcLcU8A9fh67ExK6ZxyBz1Ql5ZdYLQ4CziJGqfjfjYtUs57OKB2YsLlUE+gKSRnJBLt4W/c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749564970; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D7BOAezUBKStFtuUw2O7uMpCJ+VbOFUoNW+cBcLtYEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=txS5l930oSl/xtjfnMFS3WV4XvqUx0LD68TLvfBYyPe0iAXgdPsd2vdsmOlYI+Jbj6iVmj8h5ECt18z9LxiPsPw43YCKnfIRyHpoBsF+ZFHn4TTw5rCTJhhExNXa7afXvP+Du4hjrrNv4T3fbCqcWCJd5OeVjH4CQOdaKCoK3aI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=JjJCp49V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="JjJCp49V" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1749564967; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ckEtXaJDkq/vPCJoXtoHzuYpOtdz098DwOjgA2RlsqE=; b=JjJCp49VkDJpWmzw3It6Y70Noie3wf0JIfBt/ewkkvKkVTJfEyEK61+fuSXYmupDCtmRge jKcyN3L+g3Yh4/9k/5YVoAxfWQrsEv1GzJEffwvI9DWqEZEswehZYQq1ir7eHXxJsCaCX5 JyGdOGTmL6K712qHFJQ/WQQn3o6eu2k= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-223-0-dAorxrPJiRa1APmCi7lw-1; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:16:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0-dAorxrPJiRa1APmCi7lw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 0-dAorxrPJiRa1APmCi7lw_1749564962 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89A419560BA; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.80.100]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE2B5180035C; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:19:35 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] iomap: optional zero range dirty folio processing Message-ID: References: <20250605173357.579720-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20250605173357.579720-4-bfoster@redhat.com> <20250609160420.GC6156@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 06:29:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 08:21:06AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Yes.. but I'm not totally sure wrt impact on the fbatch checks quite > > yet. The next thing I wanted to look at is addressing the same unwritten > > mapping vs. dirty folios issue in the seek data/hole path. It's been a > > little while since I last investigated there (and that was also before > > the whole granular advance approach was devised), but IIRC it would look > > rather similar to what this is doing for zero range. That may or may > > not justify just making the batch required for both operations and > > potentially simplifying this logic further. I'll keep that in mind when > > I get to it.. > > On thing that the batch would be extremely useful for is making > iomap_file_unshare not totally suck by reading in all folios for a > range (not just the dirty ones) similar to the filemap_read path > instead of synchronously reading one block at a time. > I can add it to the list to look into. On a quick look though any reason we wouldn't want to just invoke readahead or something somewhere in that loop, particularly if that is mainly a performance issue..? Brian