| Message ID | 20230626173521.459345-1-willy@infradead.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Convert write_cache_pages() to an iterator | expand |
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:35:09PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote: > Dave Howells doesn't like the indirect function call imposed by > write_cache_pages(), so refactor it into an iterator. I took the > opportunity to add the ability to iterate a folio_batch without having > an external variable. > > This is against next-20230623. If you try to apply it on top of a tree > which doesn't include the pagevec removal series, IT WILL CRASH because > it won't reinitialise folio_batch->i and the iteration will index out > of bounds. > > I have a feeling the 'done' parameter could have a better name, but I > can't think what it might be. Heh, I actually have a local series with a minor subset of some of the cleanups, but without the iterator conversion.
Do you have this on a branch somewhere? David
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:53:02AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Do you have this on a branch somewhere?
I just pushed it out to https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/heads/writeback-iter
Running it through xfstests now. This includes one of Christoph's
suggestions, a build fix for Linus's tree, and a bugfix I noticed last
night, so it's not quite the same as the emails that were sent out in
this thread. I doubt it'll be what I send out for v2 either.
I'm looking at afs writeback now.
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > I'm looking at afs writeback now. :-) > fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 14 +- > include/linux/pagevec.h | 18 +++ > include/linux/writeback.h | 22 ++- > mm/page-writeback.c | 310 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 4 files changed, 216 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-) Documentation/mm/writeback.rst too please. David
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:03:10PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > > > I'm looking at afs writeback now. > > :-) > > > fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 14 +- > > include/linux/pagevec.h | 18 +++ > > include/linux/writeback.h | 22 ++- > > mm/page-writeback.c | 310 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 4 files changed, 216 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-) > > Documentation/mm/writeback.rst too please. $ ls Documentation/mm/w* ls: cannot access 'Documentation/mm/w*': No such file or directory $ git grep writeback Documentation/mm Documentation/mm/multigen_lru.rst:do not require TLB flushes; clean pages do not require writeback. Documentation/mm/page_migration.rst:2. Ensure that writeback is complete. Documentation/mm/page_migration.rst:15. Queued up writeback on the new page is triggered. Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst:``nr_writeback_throttled`` Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst: Number of pages written while reclaim is throttled waiting for writeback. Or are you suggesting I write a new piece of kernel documentation? If so, I respectfully decline. I've updated the kernel-doc included in Documentation/core-api/mm-api.rst and I think that's all I can reasonably be asked to do.
Just curious where this did end up. I have some changes that could use or conflict with this depending on your view. They aren't time critical yt, but if we're going to the road in this series I'd appreciate if we'd get it done rather sooner than later :)
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:31:05PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:53:02AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Do you have this on a branch somewhere? > > I just pushed it out to https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/heads/writeback-iter > > Running it through xfstests now. This includes one of Christoph's > suggestions, a build fix for Linus's tree, and a bugfix I noticed last > night, so it's not quite the same as the emails that were sent out in > this thread. I doubt it'll be what I send out for v2 either. So it turns out thіs version still applies fine and tests fine with latest mainline. I've put up a slight tweak here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/writeback-iter this moves and documents the new fields in struct writeback_control and drops the iomap patch for now as it has conflicts in the VFS tree in this merge window. Do you want me to send this version out, or do you want to take over or is there a good reason not to progress with it?