From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
djwong@kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
hare@suse.de, david@fromorbit.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
chandan.babu@oracle.com, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] filemap: align the index to mapping_min_order in the page cache
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:36:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ofna2ao4w5aywviupntdz6m5xos6qb5btdxxixkyosfw45exwp@iuuexfq62qhr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZeIr_2fiEpWLgmsv@casper.infradead.org>
On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 07:26:55PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > +#define DEFINE_READAHEAD_ALIGNED(ractl, f, r, m, i) \
> > + struct readahead_control ractl = { \
> > + .file = f, \
> > + .mapping = m, \
> > + .ra = r, \
> > + ._index = mapping_align_start_index(m, i), \
> > + }
>
> My point was that you didn't need to do any of this.
>
Got it. I probably didn't understand your old comment properly.
> Look, I've tried to give constructive review, but I feel like I'm going
> to have to be blunt. There is no evidence of design or understanding
> in these patches or their commit messages. You don't have a coherent
> message about "These things have to be aligned; these things can be at
> arbitrary alignment". If you have thought about it, it doesn't show.
>
> Maybe you just need to go back over the patches and read them as a series,
> but it feels like "Oh, there's a hole here, patch it; another hole here,
> patch it" without thinking about what's going on and why.
>
> I want to help, but it feels like it'd be easier to do all the work myself
> at this point, and that's not good for me, and it's not good for you.
>
> So, let's start off: Is the index in ractl aligned or not, and why do
> you believe that's the right approach? And review each of the patches
> in this series with the answer to that question in mind because you are
> currently inconsistent.
Thanks for the feedback, and I get your comment about inconsistentency,
especially in the part where we align the index probably in places where
it doesn't even matter. As someone who is a bit new to the inner
workings of the page cache, I was a bit unsure about choosing the right
abstracation to enforce alignment.
I am going through all the patches now based on your feedback and
changing the commit messages to clarify the intent.
--
Pankaj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-04 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 16:44 [PATCH v2 00/13] enable bs > ps in XFS Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] mm: Support order-1 folios in the page cache Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 17:08 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 17:09 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] filemap: align the index to mapping_min_order in the page cache Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 19:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-01 20:04 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-03-04 15:38 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-04 15:36 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) [this message]
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] filemap: use mapping_min_order while allocating folios Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] readahead: round up file_ra_state->ra_pages to mapping_min_nrpages Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] readahead: align index to mapping_min_order in ondemand_ra and force_ra Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] readahead: rework loop in page_cache_ra_unbounded() Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] readahead: allocate folios with mapping_min_order in ra_(unbounded|order) Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] mm: do not split a folio if it has minimum folio order requirement Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] iomap: fix iomap_dio_zero() for fs bs > system page size Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] xfs: expose block size in stat Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] xfs: make the calculation generic in xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count() Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-03-01 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] xfs: enable block size larger than page size support Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
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=ofna2ao4w5aywviupntdz6m5xos6qb5btdxxixkyosfw45exwp@iuuexfq62qhr \
--to=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--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