From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: willy@infradead.org, dwysocha@redhat.com,
Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, netfs, fscache: Stop read optimisation when folio removed from pagecache
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:26:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wghJtq-952e_8jd=vtV68y_HsDJ8=e0=C3-AsU2WL-8YA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459152.1669208550@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:02 AM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Is the attached patch too heavy to be applied this late in the merge cycle?
> Or would you prefer it to wait for the merge window?
This patch is much too much for this point in the release.
But I also think it's strange in another way, with that odd placement of
mapping_clear_release_always(inode->i_mapping);
at inode eviction time. That just feels very random.
Similarly, that change to shrink_folio_list() looks strange, with the
nasty folio_needs_release() helper. It seems entirely pointless, with
the use then being
if (folio_needs_release(folio)) {
if (!filemap_release_folio(folio, sc->gfp_mask))
goto activate_locked;
when everybody else is just using filemap_release_folio() and checking
its return value. I like how you changed other cases of
if (folio_has_private(folio) && !filemap_release_folio(folio, 0))
return 0;
to just use "!filemap_release_folio()" directly, and that felt like a
cleanup, but the shrink_folio_list() changes look like a step
backwards.
And the change to mm/filemap.c is completely unacceptable in all
forms, and this added test
+ if ((!mapping || !mapping_release_always(mapping)) &&
+ !folio_test_private(folio) &&
+ !folio_test_private_2(folio))
+ return true;
will not be accepted even during the merge window. That code makes no
sense what-so-ever, and is in no way acceptable.
That code makes no sense what-so-ever. Why isn't it using
"folio_has_private()"? Why is it using it's own illegible version of
that that doesn't match any other case? Why is this done as an
open-coded - and *badly* so - version of !folio_needs_release() that
you for some reason made private to mm/vmscan.c?
So no, this patch is too ugly to apply as-is *ever*, much less during
the late rc series.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-23 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-23 13:02 David Howells
2022-11-23 18:26 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2022-11-23 20:03 ` David Howells
2022-11-23 20:25 ` Linus Torvalds
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='CAHk-=wghJtq-952e_8jd=vtV68y_HsDJ8=e0=C3-AsU2WL-8YA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwysocha@redhat.com \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cachefs@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nspmangalore@gmail.com \
--cc=rohiths.msft@gmail.com \
--cc=sfrench@samba.org \
--cc=v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
--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