From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
miklos@szeredi.hu, brauner@kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm, kernel-team@meta.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/8] iomap: add iomap_writeback_dirty_folio()
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 23:26:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFuWhnjsKqo6ftit@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnrk1b3HfGOAkxXrJuhm3sFfJDzzd=Z7vQbKk3HO_JkGAxVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:26:01PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > The question is whether this is acceptable for all the filesystem
> > which implement ->launder_folio today. Because we could just move the
> > folio_test_dirty() to after the folio_lock() and remove all the testing
> > of folio dirtiness from individual filesystems.
>
> Or could the filesystems that implement ->launder_folio (from what I
> see, there's only 4: fuse, nfs, btrfs, and orangefs) just move that
> logic into their .release_folio implementation? I don't see why not.
> In folio_unmap_invalidate(), we call:
Without even looking into the details from the iomap POV that basically
doesn't matter. You'd still need the write back a single locked folio
interface, which adds API surface, and because it only writes a single
folio at a time is rather inefficient. Not a deal breaker because
the current version look ok, but it would still be preferable to not
have an extra magic interface for it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-25 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20250606233803.1421259-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20250606233803.1421259-6-joannelkoong@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <aEZoau3AuwoeqQgu@infradead.org>
[not found] ` <20250609171444.GL6156@frogsfrogsfrogs>
2025-06-10 3:59 ` [PATCH v1 5/8] iomap: add iomap_writeback_dirty_folio() Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-11 4:34 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-06-18 4:47 ` does fuse need ->launder_folios, was: " Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 12:17 ` Jeff Layton
2025-06-20 18:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-06-25 5:26 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-25 6:26 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-06-25 16:44 ` Joanne Koong
2025-07-01 5:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-02 21:36 ` Joanne Koong
2025-07-02 21:47 ` Joanne Koong
2025-07-01 6:23 ` Miklos Szeredi
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=aFuWhnjsKqo6ftit@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=joannelkoong@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).