* Re: [PATCH] xfs: compute buffer address correctly in xmbuf_map_backing_mem [not found] <20250408003030.GD6283@frogsfrogsfrogs> @ 2025-04-08 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig 2025-04-08 6:03 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2025-04-08 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darrick J. Wong; +Cc: Carlos Maiolino, xfs, willy, linux-mm On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 05:30:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > > Prior to commit e614a00117bc2d, xmbuf_map_backing_mem relied on > folio_file_page to return the base page for the xmbuf's loff_t in the > xfile, and set b_addr to the page_address of that base page. > > Now that folio_file_page has been removed from xmbuf_map_backing_mem, we > always set b_addr to the folio_address of the folio. This is correct > for the situation where the folio size matches the buffer size, but it's > totally wrong if tmpfs uses large folios. We need to use > offset_in_folio here. > > Found via xfs/801, which demonstrated evidence of corruption of an > in-memory rmap btree block right after initializing an adjacent block. Hmm, I thought we'd never get large folios for our non-standard tmpfs use. I guess I was wrong on that.. The fix looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> But a little note below: > + bp->b_addr = folio_address(folio) + offset_in_folio(folio, pos); Given that this is or at least will become a common pattern, do we want a mm layer helper for it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: compute buffer address correctly in xmbuf_map_backing_mem 2025-04-08 5:11 ` [PATCH] xfs: compute buffer address correctly in xmbuf_map_backing_mem Christoph Hellwig @ 2025-04-08 6:03 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2025-04-08 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: Carlos Maiolino, xfs, willy, linux-mm On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:11:08PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 05:30:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > > > > Prior to commit e614a00117bc2d, xmbuf_map_backing_mem relied on > > folio_file_page to return the base page for the xmbuf's loff_t in the > > xfile, and set b_addr to the page_address of that base page. > > > > Now that folio_file_page has been removed from xmbuf_map_backing_mem, we > > always set b_addr to the folio_address of the folio. This is correct > > for the situation where the folio size matches the buffer size, but it's > > totally wrong if tmpfs uses large folios. We need to use > > offset_in_folio here. > > > > Found via xfs/801, which demonstrated evidence of corruption of an > > in-memory rmap btree block right after initializing an adjacent block. > > Hmm, I thought we'd never get large folios for our non-standard tmpfs > use. I guess I was wrong on that.. Yeah, you can force THPs for tmpfs. I don't know why you would, the memory usage is gawful on most files that end up in there. > The fix looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > But a little note below: > > > + bp->b_addr = folio_address(folio) + offset_in_folio(folio, pos); > > Given that this is or at least will become a common pattern, do we > want a mm layer helper for it? Yeah, we should; this is the third one in XFS. What to name it, though? void *folio_addr(const struct folio *folio, loff_t pos) ? I'm surprised there wasn't an equivalent for struct page. --D ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-04-08 6:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20250408003030.GD6283@frogsfrogsfrogs>
2025-04-08 5:11 ` [PATCH] xfs: compute buffer address correctly in xmbuf_map_backing_mem Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-08 6:03 ` Darrick J. Wong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox