diff mbox series

[1/5] brd: convert to folios

Message ID 20230306120127.21375-2-hare@suse.de (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series brd: Allow to change block sizes | expand

Commit Message

Hannes Reinecke March 6, 2023, 12:01 p.m. UTC
Convert the driver to work on folios instead of pages.

Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
---
 drivers/block/brd.c | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)

Comments

kernel test robot March 6, 2023, 4:04 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi Hannes,

I love your patch! Yet something to improve:

[auto build test ERROR on axboe-block/for-next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Hannes-Reinecke/brd-convert-to-folios/20230306-200223
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git for-next
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230306120127.21375-2-hare%40suse.de
patch subject: [PATCH 1/5] brd: convert to folios
config: hexagon-randconfig-r045-20230306 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230306/202303062339.fe53AMz1-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 67409911353323ca5edf2049ef0df54132fa1ca7)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
        wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
        chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
        # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/b29fb9873ddbb2efb157e5d6548abf3c88b3458c
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Hannes-Reinecke/brd-convert-to-folios/20230306-200223
        git checkout b29fb9873ddbb2efb157e5d6548abf3c88b3458c
        # save the config file
        mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon olddefconfig
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/block/

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202303062339.fe53AMz1-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from drivers/block/brd.c:17:
   In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/blk_types.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/bvec.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/highmem.h:12:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from ./arch/hexagon/include/generated/asm/hardirq.h:1:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/hexagon/include/asm/io.h:334:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:547:31: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __raw_readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                             ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:560:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __le16_to_cpu((__le16 __force)__raw_readw(PCI_IOBASE + addr));
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:37:51: note: expanded from macro '__le16_to_cpu'
   #define __le16_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u16)(__le16)(x))
                                                     ^
   In file included from drivers/block/brd.c:17:
   In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/blk_types.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/bvec.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/highmem.h:12:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from ./arch/hexagon/include/generated/asm/hardirq.h:1:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/hexagon/include/asm/io.h:334:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:573:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr));
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:35:51: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu'
   #define __le32_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u32)(__le32)(x))
                                                     ^
   In file included from drivers/block/brd.c:17:
   In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/blk_types.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/bvec.h:10:
   In file included from include/linux/highmem.h:12:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from ./arch/hexagon/include/generated/asm/hardirq.h:1:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/hexagon/include/asm/io.h:334:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:584:33: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writeb(value, PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                               ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:594:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writew((u16 __force)cpu_to_le16(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:604:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writel((u32 __force)cpu_to_le32(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
>> drivers/block/brd.c:325:8: error: call to undeclared function 'brd_do_bvec'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
           err = brd_do_bvec(brd, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0, op, sector);
                 ^
   6 warnings and 1 error generated.


vim +/brd_do_bvec +325 drivers/block/brd.c

9db5579be4bb53 Nicholas Piggin 2008-02-08  316  
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  317  static int brd_rw_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
86947df3a92364 Bart Van Assche 2022-07-14  318  		       struct page *page, enum req_op op)
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  319  {
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  320  	struct brd_device *brd = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
98cc093cba1e92 Huang Ying      2017-09-06  321  	int err;
98cc093cba1e92 Huang Ying      2017-09-06  322  
98cc093cba1e92 Huang Ying      2017-09-06  323  	if (PageTransHuge(page))
98cc093cba1e92 Huang Ying      2017-09-06  324  		return -ENOTSUPP;
3f289dcb4b2654 Tejun Heo       2018-07-18 @325  	err = brd_do_bvec(brd, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0, op, sector);
3f289dcb4b2654 Tejun Heo       2018-07-18  326  	page_endio(page, op_is_write(op), err);
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  327  	return err;
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  328  }
a72132c31d5809 Matthew Wilcox  2014-06-04  329
Matthew Wilcox March 6, 2023, 5:37 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> -	if (!page)
> +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
> +	if (!folio)

Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?
Hannes Reinecke March 7, 2023, 6:55 a.m. UTC | #3
On 3/6/23 18:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
>> -	if (!page)
>> +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
>> +	if (!folio)
> 
> Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?

No; I thought that folios would be doing that implicitely.
Will be re-adding.

Cheers,

Hannes
Matthew Wilcox March 7, 2023, 7:30 a.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:55:32AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/6/23 18:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > > -	if (!page)
> > > +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
> > > +	if (!folio)
> > 
> > Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?
> 
> No; I thought that folios would be doing that implicitely.
> Will be re-adding.

We can't ... not all filesystems want to allocate every folio from
HIGHMEM.  eg for superblocks, it often makes more sense to allocate the
folio from lowmem than allocate it from highmem and keep it kmapped.
The only GFP flag that folios force-set is __GFP_COMP because folios by
definition are compound pages.
Luis Chamberlain March 9, 2023, 2:29 a.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Convert the driver to work on folios instead of pages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> ---
>  drivers/block/brd.c | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
> index 34177f1bd97d..7efc276c4963 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/brd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
> @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  
>  /*
> - * Each block ramdisk device has a radix_tree brd_pages of pages that stores
> - * the pages containing the block device's contents. A brd page's ->index is
> + * Each block ramdisk device has a radix_tree brd_folios of folios that stores
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^
> + * the folios containing the block device's contents. A brd folio's ->index is
      ^^^^^^^^^^

So we end up with:

"a radix_tree brd_folios of folios that stores the folios containing ..."

What about:

"a radix_tree brd_folios that stores folios containing"

Other than that, looks good:

Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>

So another thing, I think I counted about 5-8 grammatical rules which
could be bundled up into *one* SmPL grammar patch which could then be
used to automatically do similar tasks elsewhere.

  Luis
Luis Chamberlain March 9, 2023, 3:28 a.m. UTC | #6
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:30:37AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:55:32AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On 3/6/23 18:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > > > -	if (!page)
> > > > +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
> > > > +	if (!folio)
> > > 
> > > Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?
> > 
> > No; I thought that folios would be doing that implicitely.
> > Will be re-adding.
> 
> We can't ... not all filesystems want to allocate every folio from
> HIGHMEM.  eg for superblocks, it often makes more sense to allocate the
> folio from lowmem than allocate it from highmem and keep it kmapped.
> The only GFP flag that folios force-set is __GFP_COMP because folios by
> definition are compound pages.

Just some historical information here. Some commit logs would seem
to make it seem that __GFP_HIGHMEM was added to support DAX, but it's
not the case. When DAX suport was removed from brd the __GFP_HIGHMEM
removed was removed by mistake, and later fixed through commit
f6b50160a06d4 ("brd: re-enable __GFP_HIGHMEM in brd_insert_page()").
But that doesn't tell us what the default were before.

To avoid future removals maybe we should document why we care?

See these commits:

9db5579be4bb5 ("rewrite rd")               initial commit with highmem
cb9cd2ef0bbb4 ("rd: support XIP")          forces highmem if XIP, but already set
a7a97fc9ff6c2 ("brd: rename XIP to DAX")   renames the config to DAX
26defe34e48e1 ("fix brd allocation flags") tries to fix the confusion but makes it worse

And so commit f6b50160a06d4 ("brd: re-enable __GFP_HIGHMEM in brd_insert_page()")
seems to be correct in re-adding it, adn commit cb9cd2ef0bbb4 ("rd: support XIP")
made things confusing assuming we wanted only highmem when DAX was
enabled.

So we only want highmem just because it's been there since it was first added.
That's all.

  Luis
Matthew Wilcox March 21, 2023, 3 p.m. UTC | #7
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:14:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/7/23 08:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:55:32AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > On 3/6/23 18:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > > -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > > > > -	if (!page)
> > > > > +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
> > > > > +	if (!folio)
> > > > 
> > > > Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?
> > > 
> > > No; I thought that folios would be doing that implicitely.
> > > Will be re-adding.
> > 
> > We can't ... not all filesystems want to allocate every folio from
> > HIGHMEM.  eg for superblocks, it often makes more sense to allocate the
> > folio from lowmem than allocate it from highmem and keep it kmapped.
> > The only GFP flag that folios force-set is __GFP_COMP because folios by
> > definition are compound pages.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> However, when playing with the modified brd and setting the logical&physical
> blocksize to 16k the whole thing crashes
> (not unexpectedly).
> It does crash, however, in block_read_full_folio(), which rather
> surprisingly (at least for me) is using create_page_buffers();
> I would have expected something like create_folio_buffers().
> Is this work in progress or what is the plan here?

Supporting folios > PAGE_SIZE in blockdev is definitely still WIP.
I know of at least one bug, which is:

#define bh_offset(bh)           ((unsigned long)(bh)->b_data & ~PAGE_MASK)

That needs to be something like

static size_t bh_offset(const struct buffer_head *bh)
{
	return (unsigned long)bh->b_data & (folio_size(bh->b_folio) - 1);
}

I haven't done a thorough scan for folio-size problems in the block
layer; I've just been fixing up things as I notice them.

Yes, create_page_buffers() should now be create_folio_buffers().  Just
didn't get round to it yet.
Hannes Reinecke March 21, 2023, 3:26 p.m. UTC | #8
On 3/21/23 16:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:14:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 3/7/23 08:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:55:32AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/23 18:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:01:23PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>>> -	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
>>>>>> -	if (!page)
>>>>>> +	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
>>>>>> +	if (!folio)
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you drop HIGHMEM support on purpose?
>>>>
>>>> No; I thought that folios would be doing that implicitely.
>>>> Will be re-adding.
>>>
>>> We can't ... not all filesystems want to allocate every folio from
>>> HIGHMEM.  eg for superblocks, it often makes more sense to allocate the
>>> folio from lowmem than allocate it from highmem and keep it kmapped.
>>> The only GFP flag that folios force-set is __GFP_COMP because folios by
>>> definition are compound pages.
>>
>> Oh well.
>>
>> However, when playing with the modified brd and setting the logical&physical
>> blocksize to 16k the whole thing crashes
>> (not unexpectedly).
>> It does crash, however, in block_read_full_folio(), which rather
>> surprisingly (at least for me) is using create_page_buffers();
>> I would have expected something like create_folio_buffers().
>> Is this work in progress or what is the plan here?
> 
> Supporting folios > PAGE_SIZE in blockdev is definitely still WIP.
> I know of at least one bug, which is:
> 
> #define bh_offset(bh)           ((unsigned long)(bh)->b_data & ~PAGE_MASK)
> 
> That needs to be something like
> 
> static size_t bh_offset(const struct buffer_head *bh)
> {
> 	return (unsigned long)bh->b_data & (folio_size(bh->b_folio) - 1);
> }
> 
> I haven't done a thorough scan for folio-size problems in the block
> layer; I've just been fixing up things as I notice them.
> 
And not to mention the various instances of (PAGE_SHIFT - blkbits)
which will get happily into negative numbers for large block sizes,
resulting in interesting effects for a shift left operation ...

> Yes, create_page_buffers() should now be create_folio_buffers().  Just
> didn't get round to it yet.

Ah, so I was on the right track after all.

But I was wondering ... couldn't we use the physical block size as a 
hint on how many pages to allocate?
With that we can work on updating the stack even with existing hardware, 
and we wouldn't crash immediately if we miss the odd conversion ...

Hmm?

Cheers,

Hannes
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
index 34177f1bd97d..7efc276c4963 100644
--- a/drivers/block/brd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ 
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 
 /*
- * Each block ramdisk device has a radix_tree brd_pages of pages that stores
- * the pages containing the block device's contents. A brd page's ->index is
+ * Each block ramdisk device has a radix_tree brd_folios of folios that stores
+ * the folios containing the block device's contents. A brd folio's ->index is
  * its offset in PAGE_SIZE units. This is similar to, but in no way connected
  * with, the kernel's pagecache or buffer cache (which sit above our block
  * device).
@@ -40,25 +40,25 @@  struct brd_device {
 	struct list_head	brd_list;
 
 	/*
-	 * Backing store of pages and lock to protect it. This is the contents
-	 * of the block device.
+	 * Backing store of folios and lock to protect it.
+	 * This is the contents of the block device.
 	 */
 	spinlock_t		brd_lock;
-	struct radix_tree_root	brd_pages;
-	u64			brd_nr_pages;
+	struct radix_tree_root	brd_folios;
+	u64			brd_nr_folios;
 };
 
 /*
- * Look up and return a brd's page for a given sector.
+ * Look up and return a brd's folio for a given sector.
  */
-static struct page *brd_lookup_page(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector)
+static struct folio *brd_lookup_folio(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector)
 {
 	pgoff_t idx;
-	struct page *page;
+	struct folio *folio;
 
 	/*
-	 * The page lifetime is protected by the fact that we have opened the
-	 * device node -- brd pages will never be deleted under us, so we
+	 * The folio lifetime is protected by the fact that we have opened the
+	 * device node -- brd folios will never be deleted under us, so we
 	 * don't need any further locking or refcounting.
 	 *
 	 * This is strictly true for the radix-tree nodes as well (ie. we
@@ -68,49 +68,49 @@  static struct page *brd_lookup_page(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector)
 	 * here, only deletes).
 	 */
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	idx = sector >> PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT; /* sector to page index */
-	page = radix_tree_lookup(&brd->brd_pages, idx);
+	idx = sector >> PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT; /* sector to folio index */
+	folio = radix_tree_lookup(&brd->brd_folios, idx);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-	BUG_ON(page && page->index != idx);
+	BUG_ON(folio && folio->index != idx);
 
-	return page;
+	return folio;
 }
 
 /*
- * Insert a new page for a given sector, if one does not already exist.
+ * Insert a new folio for a given sector, if one does not already exist.
  */
-static int brd_insert_page(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector, gfp_t gfp)
+static int brd_insert_folio(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector, gfp_t gfp)
 {
 	pgoff_t idx;
-	struct page *page;
+	struct folio *folio;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	page = brd_lookup_page(brd, sector);
-	if (page)
+	folio = brd_lookup_folio(brd, sector);
+	if (folio)
 		return 0;
 
-	page = alloc_page(gfp | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
-	if (!page)
+	folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
+	if (!folio)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	if (radix_tree_maybe_preload(gfp)) {
-		__free_page(page);
+		folio_put(folio);
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
 	spin_lock(&brd->brd_lock);
 	idx = sector >> PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT;
-	page->index = idx;
-	if (radix_tree_insert(&brd->brd_pages, idx, page)) {
-		__free_page(page);
-		page = radix_tree_lookup(&brd->brd_pages, idx);
-		if (!page)
+	folio->index = idx;
+	if (radix_tree_insert(&brd->brd_folios, idx, folio)) {
+		folio_put(folio);
+		folio = radix_tree_lookup(&brd->brd_folios, idx);
+		if (!folio)
 			ret = -ENOMEM;
-		else if (page->index != idx)
+		else if (folio->index != idx)
 			ret = -EIO;
 	} else {
-		brd->brd_nr_pages++;
+		brd->brd_nr_folios++;
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&brd->brd_lock);
 
@@ -119,30 +119,30 @@  static int brd_insert_page(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector, gfp_t gfp)
 }
 
 /*
- * Free all backing store pages and radix tree. This must only be called when
+ * Free all backing store folios and radix tree. This must only be called when
  * there are no other users of the device.
  */
 #define FREE_BATCH 16
-static void brd_free_pages(struct brd_device *brd)
+static void brd_free_folios(struct brd_device *brd)
 {
 	unsigned long pos = 0;
-	struct page *pages[FREE_BATCH];
-	int nr_pages;
+	struct folio *folios[FREE_BATCH];
+	int nr_folios;
 
 	do {
 		int i;
 
-		nr_pages = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&brd->brd_pages,
-				(void **)pages, pos, FREE_BATCH);
+		nr_folios = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&brd->brd_folios,
+				(void **)folios, pos, FREE_BATCH);
 
-		for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
+		for (i = 0; i < nr_folios; i++) {
 			void *ret;
 
-			BUG_ON(pages[i]->index < pos);
-			pos = pages[i]->index;
-			ret = radix_tree_delete(&brd->brd_pages, pos);
-			BUG_ON(!ret || ret != pages[i]);
-			__free_page(pages[i]);
+			BUG_ON(folios[i]->index < pos);
+			pos = folios[i]->index;
+			ret = radix_tree_delete(&brd->brd_folios, pos);
+			BUG_ON(!ret || ret != folios[i]);
+			folio_put(folios[i]);
 		}
 
 		pos++;
@@ -155,10 +155,10 @@  static void brd_free_pages(struct brd_device *brd)
 
 		/*
 		 * This assumes radix_tree_gang_lookup always returns as
-		 * many pages as possible. If the radix-tree code changes,
+		 * many folios as possible. If the radix-tree code changes,
 		 * so will this have to.
 		 */
-	} while (nr_pages == FREE_BATCH);
+	} while (nr_folios == FREE_BATCH);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -172,12 +172,12 @@  static int copy_to_brd_setup(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector, size_t n,
 	int ret;
 
 	copy = min_t(size_t, n, PAGE_SIZE - offset);
-	ret = brd_insert_page(brd, sector, gfp);
+	ret = brd_insert_folio(brd, sector, gfp);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 	if (copy < n) {
 		sector += copy >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
-		ret = brd_insert_page(brd, sector, gfp);
+		ret = brd_insert_folio(brd, sector, gfp);
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -188,29 +188,29 @@  static int copy_to_brd_setup(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector, size_t n,
 static void copy_to_brd(struct brd_device *brd, const void *src,
 			sector_t sector, size_t n)
 {
-	struct page *page;
+	struct folio *folio;
 	void *dst;
 	unsigned int offset = (sector & (PAGE_SECTORS-1)) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
 	size_t copy;
 
 	copy = min_t(size_t, n, PAGE_SIZE - offset);
-	page = brd_lookup_page(brd, sector);
-	BUG_ON(!page);
+	folio = brd_lookup_folio(brd, sector);
+	BUG_ON(!folio);
 
-	dst = kmap_atomic(page);
-	memcpy(dst + offset, src, copy);
-	kunmap_atomic(dst);
+	dst = kmap_local_folio(folio, offset);
+	memcpy(dst, src, copy);
+	kunmap_local(dst);
 
 	if (copy < n) {
 		src += copy;
 		sector += copy >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
 		copy = n - copy;
-		page = brd_lookup_page(brd, sector);
-		BUG_ON(!page);
+		folio = brd_lookup_folio(brd, sector);
+		BUG_ON(!folio);
 
-		dst = kmap_atomic(page);
+		dst = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
 		memcpy(dst, src, copy);
-		kunmap_atomic(dst);
+		kunmap_local(dst);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -220,17 +220,17 @@  static void copy_to_brd(struct brd_device *brd, const void *src,
 static void copy_from_brd(void *dst, struct brd_device *brd,
 			sector_t sector, size_t n)
 {
-	struct page *page;
+	struct folio *folio;
 	void *src;
 	unsigned int offset = (sector & (PAGE_SECTORS-1)) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
 	size_t copy;
 
 	copy = min_t(size_t, n, PAGE_SIZE - offset);
-	page = brd_lookup_page(brd, sector);
-	if (page) {
-		src = kmap_atomic(page);
-		memcpy(dst, src + offset, copy);
-		kunmap_atomic(src);
+	folio = brd_lookup_folio(brd, sector);
+	if (folio) {
+		src = kmap_local_folio(folio, offset);
+		memcpy(dst, src, copy);
+		kunmap_local(src);
 	} else
 		memset(dst, 0, copy);
 
@@ -238,20 +238,20 @@  static void copy_from_brd(void *dst, struct brd_device *brd,
 		dst += copy;
 		sector += copy >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
 		copy = n - copy;
-		page = brd_lookup_page(brd, sector);
-		if (page) {
-			src = kmap_atomic(page);
+		folio = brd_lookup_folio(brd, sector);
+		if (folio) {
+			src = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
 			memcpy(dst, src, copy);
-			kunmap_atomic(src);
+			kunmap_local(src);
 		} else
 			memset(dst, 0, copy);
 	}
 }
 
 /*
- * Process a single bvec of a bio.
+ * Process a single folio of a bio.
  */
-static int brd_do_bvec(struct brd_device *brd, struct page *page,
+static int brd_do_folio(struct brd_device *brd, struct folio *folio,
 			unsigned int len, unsigned int off, blk_opf_t opf,
 			sector_t sector)
 {
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@  static int brd_do_bvec(struct brd_device *brd, struct page *page,
 	if (op_is_write(opf)) {
 		/*
 		 * Must use NOIO because we don't want to recurse back into the
-		 * block or filesystem layers from page reclaim.
+		 * block or filesystem layers from folio reclaim.
 		 */
 		gfp_t gfp = opf & REQ_NOWAIT ? GFP_NOWAIT : GFP_NOIO;
 
@@ -270,15 +270,15 @@  static int brd_do_bvec(struct brd_device *brd, struct page *page,
 			goto out;
 	}
 
-	mem = kmap_atomic(page);
+	mem = kmap_local_folio(folio, off);
 	if (!op_is_write(opf)) {
-		copy_from_brd(mem + off, brd, sector, len);
-		flush_dcache_page(page);
+		copy_from_brd(mem, brd, sector, len);
+		flush_dcache_folio(folio);
 	} else {
-		flush_dcache_page(page);
-		copy_to_brd(brd, mem + off, sector, len);
+		flush_dcache_folio(folio);
+		copy_to_brd(brd, mem, sector, len);
 	}
-	kunmap_atomic(mem);
+	kunmap_local(mem);
 
 out:
 	return err;
@@ -288,19 +288,18 @@  static void brd_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
 {
 	struct brd_device *brd = bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
 	sector_t sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
-	struct bio_vec bvec;
-	struct bvec_iter iter;
+	struct folio_iter iter;
 
-	bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
-		unsigned int len = bvec.bv_len;
+	bio_for_each_folio_all(iter, bio) {
+		unsigned int len = iter.length;
 		int err;
 
 		/* Don't support un-aligned buffer */
-		WARN_ON_ONCE((bvec.bv_offset & (SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) ||
+		WARN_ON_ONCE((iter.offset & (SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) ||
 				(len & (SECTOR_SIZE - 1)));
 
-		err = brd_do_bvec(brd, bvec.bv_page, len, bvec.bv_offset,
-				  bio->bi_opf, sector);
+		err = brd_do_folio(brd, iter.folio, len, iter.offset,
+				   bio->bi_opf, sector);
 		if (err) {
 			if (err == -ENOMEM && bio->bi_opf & REQ_NOWAIT) {
 				bio_wouldblock_error(bio);
@@ -373,12 +372,12 @@  static int brd_alloc(int i)
 	list_add_tail(&brd->brd_list, &brd_devices);
 
 	spin_lock_init(&brd->brd_lock);
-	INIT_RADIX_TREE(&brd->brd_pages, GFP_ATOMIC);
+	INIT_RADIX_TREE(&brd->brd_folios, GFP_ATOMIC);
 
 	snprintf(buf, DISK_NAME_LEN, "ram%d", i);
 	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(brd_debugfs_dir))
 		debugfs_create_u64(buf, 0444, brd_debugfs_dir,
-				&brd->brd_nr_pages);
+				&brd->brd_nr_folios);
 
 	disk = brd->brd_disk = blk_alloc_disk(NUMA_NO_NODE);
 	if (!disk)
@@ -434,7 +433,7 @@  static void brd_cleanup(void)
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(brd, next, &brd_devices, brd_list) {
 		del_gendisk(brd->brd_disk);
 		put_disk(brd->brd_disk);
-		brd_free_pages(brd);
+		brd_free_folios(brd);
 		list_del(&brd->brd_list);
 		kfree(brd);
 	}
@@ -465,7 +464,7 @@  static int __init brd_init(void)
 
 	brd_check_and_reset_par();
 
-	brd_debugfs_dir = debugfs_create_dir("ramdisk_pages", NULL);
+	brd_debugfs_dir = debugfs_create_dir("ramdisk_folios", NULL);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < rd_nr; i++) {
 		err = brd_alloc(i);