Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:33:21 +0100 | From | "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/13] iomap: fix iomap_dio_zero() for fs bs > system page size |
| |
> I thought we were going to use the huge_zero_page for this?
Yes. We discussed that huge_zero_page might fail, so we concluded that we needed an api that can return arbitrary folio order that will not fail: ``` your point about it possibly failing is correct. so i think we need an api which definitely returns a folio, but it might be of arbitrary order. ```
I couldn't come up with implementing your latter suggestion, so I informed darrick that let's use this patch for now, and add the arbitrary folio order with zero as a later enhancement.
If we want to use mm_huge_zero_page, then this should work:
diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c index 04f6c5548136..b6a3f52f48da 100644 --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c @@ -237,10 +237,17 @@ static void iomap_dio_zero(const struct iomap_iter *iter, struct iomap_dio *dio, { struct inode *inode = file_inode(dio->iocb->ki_filp); struct page *page = ZERO_PAGE(0); + struct folio *folio = NULL; struct bio *bio; WARN_ON_ONCE(len > (BIO_MAX_VECS * PAGE_SIZE)); + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) { + page = mm_get_huge_zero_page(current->mm); + if (!page) + page = ZERO_PAGE(0); + } + bio = iomap_dio_alloc_bio(iter, dio, BIO_MAX_VECS, REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE); fscrypt_set_bio_crypt_ctx(bio, inode, pos >> inode->i_blkbits, @@ -249,13 +256,15 @@ static void iomap_dio_zero(const struct iomap_iter *iter, struct iomap_dio *dio, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = iomap_sector(&iter->iomap, pos); bio->bi_private = dio; bio->bi_end_io = iomap_dio_bio_end_io; + folio = page_folio(page); while (len) { - unsigned int io_len = min_t(unsigned int, len, PAGE_SIZE); + size_t size = min(len, folio_size(folio)); - __bio_add_page(bio, page, io_len, 0); - len -= io_len; + bio_add_folio_nofail(bio, folio, size, 0); + len -= size; } + iomap_dio_submit_bio(iter, dio, bio, pos); }
Let me know if we should go for this or let's keep the original patch and add a ZERO_FOLIO_ORDER API that will not fail and use it as a later enhancement.
| |