From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0129F33C197 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763487079; cv=none; b=nX7TI/LziI8q6cHPGuv1HSjmkfQNvtVFV7F4HNNmqoEumV8lczACEe1ry40gCnv4J1lXgcbyT8zDiEGKyYHh+o2dbQD876pV1DueI9hUInplGtEunQFgBWELvYGlYLH/z+5bit8EY8IOQDa9CvH6fLYWCxek5btmzr1SUxHAzP0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763487079; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nhASVdDt4OdAwVAANU2bomnv6+IJT33HttvU1MpH8Lo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References; b=S+3NhLQKarjWN5yfzHJ/oj9oLciHQF5hOF9vyIsPCnZa8WerkHunsr+DT/PUnWcKKXTXGFDgmkSh5om7swYB2v83WdCrh2QA3KKSMt12XfFuTXmPc7wwmw03LjXo+aMU99kvevMuervcgCzqL4TAWl9Md39/1B8SUQZSYbZQkRg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=NLoGzHJf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.48 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="NLoGzHJf" Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-34361025290so4413006a91.1 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:31:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763487076; x=1764091876; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jJZHPmpfAYK3kOvAYzdDDouNFc3+GX3mg/4dP4wkGpE=; b=NLoGzHJfgXsbAIpeLOuT6H6thcbOWsDrkYUlxHE9fk3EaW4cGSmISVyDK/gU6ynD88 N14Z9t/iBYvcVGGUJmeap1tNlmbkLAjhKlO+R0Dgqq2Is/zEvq+xKgVPOz5ZG5yPGTNM ubaLmhdYov6TNgBBIgKY995lAQtqIcbwfnFAi76HWg7vURciDFf/clqnmsX/E6xwn9ys HhzeJjSb/w6tbMbCjRS5qTE6A3g4D5uSTi50vWEpjslAIkTDywlrFQRmUKQfGoaiFbgV Yoju0NimoDihKurn/a1/7eNFWW7gMu4HWdBJazse1O9QWcZTXqRrQHyNqfB+W5W3kNjs 8KRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763487076; x=1764091876; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jJZHPmpfAYK3kOvAYzdDDouNFc3+GX3mg/4dP4wkGpE=; b=EHgQR6jN5N7p//AtoiWyGS8WVCp9STj558MGmpfSsi4ZmCthA8pJBBQpL2n5wlobPY iQINNHJFQDD3PoRyZRK8zoMRYAJAc9mToQYp2U+n787yNr6QAvDBA1r6LufonUsxNYNj 33VolfUltB8pHNhaKs0IabNEsp2N/73045jm3y//XvElTkbDu+aqJT77cJotXbBjZib8 b9Yds6CI9eagm5/FfNnCH4btATpndAisYm/ZYcY9j8Eszxf7D3sY6phtKQ9cVoNzjceQ 1PPhDDfGNmJ3SKXgdb786wBZ0EPAQfQb0GCCnblCXp+4vRbqKtGcGerUB7CQnS8dQkd1 hcnA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXK9470z0HToI5vdXKJh5g4/6C7tspFapT46SlfWrF5+GcgWrn8Row3bE2Bz6y1V6Owq3o1NiLqRz4S0MQO4k52UGg=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxqcpbY7mpjMdPDienuMFupGKMf2nLjLZnKIjXy0cJ9H31Om50q RHzRlFHteXOpLdfPFE9eIvqtOazzXP+QO1U0J2zfnrL8DNIaQIE1X5+qMpNAZw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvQXflOKizx/Vs3D/ob1LyLPVwi8k6KG+5XH9H1TZ3udrwwXAz0N0RYud3CmGL FAodXSnUTDaP8Ri6KSMoVTPXpi94+1eBOIamUKhDc/95HGqKG8epdsU7XQ03Zd4kd8z7f7GwYRQ yXjprtNBrZqMreNbAlC6qdNaGracS0JEY0OdM/rxAI76CiNSAiNcPz0iikeOTNOIt2cyv8S1GDY S/9yYd+H3nPftkQWw2sNMCTX0QmLcHX7oDQpEQrpI15mcyzN6KDfFS6438p2Nc1JZEprPjCoWJJ SHycjk5zMwH4dnp6QWO3s+upaT28r26Jgwgf+QiHJpCn343FhUwSnNx8Btpzkdfnp1+oh5dIhFw OmSbkAPOaPaimuxch8wG9WkOwwObp/kg6wr8u/VlXT5B+OWLiHT6VBl9c96S2KXRg9T1XNBg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEQrU5uwPDP3B0D60MQHHmGXSAeXE5fv7FgIePf1xPikPaNbxxiXR2fp/Zl+qVssNoTrpyjFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3843:b0:330:7a32:3290 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-343fa751ad3mr18844371a91.37.1763487075532; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:31:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from dw-tp ([49.207.232.208]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-345af0fcc0csm1694884a91.0.2025.11.18.09.31.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:31:13 -0800 (PST) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Ojaswin Mujoo , Christian Brauner , djwong@kernel.org, john.g.garry@oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jack@suse.cz, nilay@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] mm: Add PG_atomic In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 21:47:42 +0530 Message-ID: <878qg32u3d.ritesh.list@gmail.com> References: <5f0a7c62a3c787f2011ada10abe3826a94f99e17.1762945505.git.ojaswin@linux.ibm.com> <87ecq18azq.ritesh.list@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Matthew Wilcox writes: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:30:09AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> Matthew Wilcox writes: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 04:36:05PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: >> >> From: John Garry >> >> >> >> Add page flag PG_atomic, meaning that a folio needs to be written back >> >> atomically. This will be used by for handling RWF_ATOMIC buffered IO >> >> in upcoming patches. >> > >> > Page flags are a precious resource. I'm not thrilled about allocating one >> > to this rather niche usecase. Wouldn't this be more aptly a flag on the >> > address_space rather than the folio? ie if we're doing this kind of write >> > to a file, aren't most/all of the writes to the file going to be atomic? >> >> As of today the atomic writes functionality works on the per-write >> basis (given it's a per-write characteristic). >> >> So, we can have two types of dirty folios sitting in the page cache of >> an inode. Ones which were done using atomic buffered I/O flag >> (RWF_ATOMIC) and the other ones which were non-atomic writes. Hence a >> need of a folio flag to distinguish between the two writes. > > I know, but is this useful? AFAIK, the files where Postgres wants to > use this functionality are the log files, and all writes to the log > files will want to use the atomic functionality. What's the usecase > for "I want to mix atomic and non-atomic buffered writes to this file"? Actually this goes back to the design of how we added support of atomic writes during DIO. So during the initial design phase we decided that this need not be a per-inode attribute or an open flag, but this is a per write I/O characteristic. So as per the current design, we don't have any open flag or a persistent inode attribute which says kernel should permit _only_ atomic writes I/O to this file. Instead what we support today is DIO atomic writes using RWF_ATOMIC flag in pwritev2 syscall. Having said that there can be several policy decision that could still be discussed e.g. make sure any previous dirty data is flushed to disk when a buffered atomic write request is made to an inode. Maybe that would allow us to just keep a flag at the address space level because we would never have a mix of atomic and non-atomic page cache pages. IMO, I agree that folio flag is a scarce resource, but I guess the initial goal of this patch series is mainly to discuss the initial design of the core feature i.e. how buffered atomic writes should look in Linux kernel. I agree and point taken that we should be careful with using folio flags, but let's see how the design shapes up maybe? - that will help us understand whether a folio flag is really required or maybe an address space flag would do. -ritesh