From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97361C4332F for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:51:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201CE611B0 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:51:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 201CE611B0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A2A9C6B006C; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9DA7B6B0071; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:51:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8C8B8900002; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:51:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0070.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D70A6B006C for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2704282499A8 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:51:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78718465980.09.99D603F Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DA6F00008C for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:51:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=+Eio57oEZSpnsX9I7fCKLL4P+h3R1RqCxuN4ifMdK4g=; b=k+v5i7ybYI/mDCEVENeKt+R9of XGOJ0+COAA1DPOWD/P71NccqSGeWCnnsIqe5kGM+CMi1A1eBB1jmPS4tVee1kC9Ricl6Q8RVHbcdW JAzP7f/SjR/y5PkwpokYP0q4PZyAlEaWuu/2ZTOruTzaVJ/9GETnUxxwgq0Vzu4KPnvcX6ce3yRse Cvyym9DaATNrvIMzpWiB81zS2g+jQ9MUkw93KnvSg4hOV6tzQZanw2JwDtaBa3L+Ux84dNMogBuSv aZcxkehAPS/jy95u/rZUEWWPeVruweGIT7tMcMaP269riU2JQv0j5m0bFRSnDDqnnmVETY+EmJFCy 3ZLNFdkA==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mdLLD-00CvF6-R8; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:50:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:49:51 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Yang Shi Cc: Hugh Dickins , Song Liu , Andrew Morton , Hao Sun , Linux MM , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Song Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: buffer: check huge page size instead of single page for invalidatepage Message-ID: References: <20210917205731.262693-1-shy828301@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 92DA6F00008C X-Stat-Signature: xcdicjau93i6p9uxpz6ekoexk7qr44gq Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=k+v5i7yb; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org X-HE-Tag: 1634773906-498843 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > However, it still doesn't make too much sense to have thp_size passed > > to do_invalidatepage(), then have PAGE_SIZE hardcoded in a BUG > > assertion IMHO. So it seems this patch is still useful because > > block_invalidatepage() is called by a few filesystems as well, for > > example, ext4. Or I'm wondering whether we should call > > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage of THP in truncate_cleanup_page() > > since private is for each subpage IIUC. > > Seems no interest? No. I have changes in this area as part of the folio patchset (where we end up converting this to invalidate_folio). I'm not really interested in doing anything before that, since this shouldn't be reachable today. > Anyway the more I was staring at the code the more I thought calling > do_invalidatepage() for each subpage made more sense. So, something > like the below makes sense? Definitely not. We want to invalidate the entire folio at once.