linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/17] btrfs: refactor btrfs_release_extent_buffer_pages()
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:39:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fbccbadb-096c-3de3-0c33-bc1682510c17@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dad03832-6de2-5aac-3f67-6b6f2d13cabc@suse.com>



On 2020/9/11 下午7:17, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8.09.20 г. 10:52 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> We have attach_extent_buffer_page() and it get utilized in
>> btrfs_clone_extent_buffer() and alloc_extent_buffer().
>>
>> But in btrfs_release_extent_buffer_pages() we manually call
>> detach_page_private().
>>
>> This is fine for current code, but if we're going to support subpage
>> size, we will do a lot of more work other than just calling
>> detach_page_private().
>>
>> This patch will extract the main work of btrfs_clone_extent_buffer()
> 
> Did you mean to type btrfs_release_extent_buffer_pages instead of
> clone_extent_buffer ?

Oh, that's what I mean exactly...

> 
>> into detach_extent_buffer_page() so that later subpage size support can
>> put their own code into them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> index 3c8fe40f67fa..1cb41dab7a1d 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
>> @@ -4920,6 +4920,29 @@ int extent_buffer_under_io(const struct extent_buffer *eb)
>>  		test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_DIRTY, &eb->bflags));
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void detach_extent_buffer_page(struct extent_buffer *eb,
>> +				      struct page *page)
>> +{
>> +	bool mapped = !test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_UNMAPPED, &eb->bflags);
> 
> nit: Now you are performing the atomic op once per page rather than once
> per-eb.

Makes sense, I should just extract the for () loop into a function
rather than the loop body.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
>> +
>> +	if (!page)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	if (mapped)
>> +		spin_lock(&page->mapping->private_lock);
>> +	if (PagePrivate(page) && page->private == (unsigned long)eb) {
>> +		BUG_ON(test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_DIRTY, &eb->bflags));
>> +		BUG_ON(PageDirty(page));
>> +		BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
>> +		/* We need to make sure we haven't be attached to a new eb. */
>> +		detach_page_private(page);
>> +	}
>> +	if (mapped)
>> +		spin_unlock(&page->mapping->private_lock);
>> +	/* One for when we allocated the page */
>> +	put_page(page);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Release all pages attached to the extent buffer.
>>   */
>> @@ -4927,43 +4950,12 @@ static void btrfs_release_extent_buffer_pages(struct extent_buffer *eb)
>>  {
>>  	int i;
>>  	int num_pages;
>> -	int mapped = !test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_UNMAPPED, &eb->bflags);
>>  
>>  	BUG_ON(extent_buffer_under_io(eb));
>>  
>>  	num_pages = num_extent_pages(eb);
>> -	for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
>> -		struct page *page = eb->pages[i];
>> -
>> -		if (!page)
>> -			continue;
>> -		if (mapped)
>> -			spin_lock(&page->mapping->private_lock);
>> -		/*
>> -		 * We do this since we'll remove the pages after we've
>> -		 * removed the eb from the radix tree, so we could race
>> -		 * and have this page now attached to the new eb.  So
>> -		 * only clear page_private if it's still connected to
>> -		 * this eb.
>> -		 */
>> -		if (PagePrivate(page) &&
>> -		    page->private == (unsigned long)eb) {
>> -			BUG_ON(test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_DIRTY, &eb->bflags));
>> -			BUG_ON(PageDirty(page));
>> -			BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
>> -			/*
>> -			 * We need to make sure we haven't be attached
>> -			 * to a new eb.
>> -			 */
>> -			detach_page_private(page);
>> -		}
>> -
>> -		if (mapped)
>> -			spin_unlock(&page->mapping->private_lock);
>> -
>> -		/* One for when we allocated the page */
>> -		put_page(page);
>> -	}
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++)
>> +		detach_extent_buffer_page(eb, eb->pages[i]);
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-11 11:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-08  7:52 [PATCH 00/17] btrfs: add read-only support for subpage sector size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 01/17] btrfs: extent-io-tests: remove invalid tests Qu Wenruo
2020-09-09 12:26   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-09 13:06     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 02/17] btrfs: calculate inline extent buffer page size based on page size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11  9:56   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-11 10:13     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 03/17] btrfs: remove the open-code to read disk-key Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 10:07   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 04/17] btrfs: make btrfs_fs_info::buffer_radix to take sector size devided values Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 10:11   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-11 10:15     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 05/17] btrfs: don't allow tree block to cross page boundary for subpage support Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 10:26   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-11 11:36     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 12:08       ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 06/17] btrfs: handle sectorsize < PAGE_SIZE case for extent buffer accessors Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 07/17] btrfs: make csum_tree_block() handle sectorsize smaller than page size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 11:10   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 08/17] btrfs: refactor how we extract extent buffer from page for alloc_extent_buffer() Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 11:14   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 09/17] btrfs: refactor btrfs_release_extent_buffer_pages() Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 11:17   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-11 11:39     ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 10/17] btrfs: add assert_spin_locked() for attach_extent_buffer_page() Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 11:22   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 11/17] btrfs: extract the extent buffer verification from btree_readpage_end_io_hook() Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 13:00   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 12/17] btrfs: remove the unnecessary parameter @start and @len for check_data_csum() Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 13:50   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 13/17] btrfs: extent_io: only require sector size alignment for page read Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 13:55   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-09-15  1:54     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 14/17] btrfs: make btrfs_readpage_end_io_hook() follow sector size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-09 17:34   ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2020-09-10  0:05     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-09-10 14:26       ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 15/17] btrfs: introduce subpage_eb_mapping for extent buffers Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08 10:22   ` kernel test robot
2020-09-08 14:24   ` Dan Carpenter
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 16/17] btrfs: handle extent buffer verification proper for subpage size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  7:52 ` [PATCH 17/17] btrfs: allow RO mount of 4K sector size fs on 64K page system Qu Wenruo
2020-09-08  8:03 ` [PATCH 00/17] btrfs: add read-only support for subpage sector size Qu Wenruo
2020-09-11 10:24 ` Qu Wenruo

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=fbccbadb-096c-3de3-0c33-bc1682510c17@suse.com \
    --to=wqu@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).