On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> On 5/19/20 12:06 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:35:59AM +0200, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> > > On 5/19/20 7:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 17 May 2020 23:47:18 +0200 Guoqing Jiang
> > > > <guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We can cleanup code a little by call detach_page_private here.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > > > > @@ -804,10 +804,7 @@ static int __buffer_migrate_page(struct
> > > > > address_space *mapping,
> > > > > if (rc != MIGRATEPAGE_SUCCESS)
> > > > > goto unlock_buffers;
> > > > > - ClearPagePrivate(page);
> > > > > - set_page_private(newpage, page_private(page));
> > > > > - set_page_private(page, 0);
> > > > > - put_page(page);
> > > > > + set_page_private(newpage, detach_page_private(page));
> > > > > get_page(newpage);
> > > > > bh = head;
> > > > mm/migrate.c: In function '__buffer_migrate_page':
> > > > ./include/linux/mm_types.h:243:52: warning: assignment makes integer
> > > > from pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
> > > > #define set_page_private(page, v) ((page)->private = (v))
> > > > ^
> > > > mm/migrate.c:800:2: note: in expansion of macro 'set_page_private'
> > > > set_page_private(newpage, detach_page_private(page));
> > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > The fact that set_page_private(detach_page_private()) generates a type
> > > > mismatch warning seems deeply wrong, surely.
> > > >
> > > > Please let's get the types sorted out - either unsigned long or void *,
> > > > not half-one and half-the other. Whatever needs the least typecasting
> > > > at callsites, I suggest.
> > > Sorry about that, I should notice the warning before. I will double check
> > > if
> > > other
> > > places need the typecast or not, then send a new version.
> > >
> > > > And can we please implement set_page_private() and page_private() with
> > > > inlined C code? There is no need for these to be macros.
> > > Just did a quick change.
> > >
> > > -#define page_private(page)?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
> > > ((page)->private)
> > > -#define set_page_private(page, v)?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ((page)->private = (v))
> > > +static inline unsigned long page_private(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > +?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? return page->private;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void set_page_private(struct page *page, unsigned long
> > > priv_data)
> > > +{
> > > +?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? page->private = priv_data;
> > > +}
> > >
> > > Then I get error like.
> > >
> > > fs/erofs/zdata.h: In function ???????z_erofs_onlinepage_index????????:
> > > fs/erofs/zdata.h:126:8: error: lvalue required as unary ???????&????????
> > > operand
> > > ?? u.v = &page_private(page);
> > > ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ^
> > >
> > > I guess it is better to keep page_private as macro, please correct me in
> > > case I
> > > missed something.
> > I guess that you could Cc me in the reply.
>
> Sorry for not do that ...
>
> > In that case, EROFS uses page->private as an atomic integer to
> > trace 2 partial subpages in one page.
> >
> > I think that you could also use &page->private instead directly to
> > replace &page_private(page) here since I didn't find some hint to
> > pick &page_private(page) or &page->private.
>
> Thanks for the input, I just did a quick test, so need to investigate more.
> And I think it is better to have another thread to change those macros to
> inline function, then fix related issues due to the change.
I have no problem with that. Actually I did some type punning,
but I'm not sure if it's in a proper way. I'm very happy to improve
that as well.
>
> > In addition, I found some limitation of new {attach,detach}_page_private
> > helper (that is why I was interested in this series at that time [1] [2],
> > but I gave up finally) since many patterns (not all) in EROFS are
> >
> > io_submit (origin, page locked):
> > attach_page_private(page);
> > ...
> > put_page(page);
> >
> > end_io (page locked):
> > SetPageUptodate(page);
> > unlock_page(page);
> >
> > since the page is always locked, so io_submit could be simplified as
> > set_page_private(page, ...);
> > SetPagePrivate(page);
> > , which can save both one temporary get_page(page) and one
> > put_page(page) since it could be regarded as safe with page locked.
>
> The SetPageUptodate is not called inside {attach,detach}_page_private,
> I could probably misunderstand your point, maybe you want the new pairs
> can handle the locked page, care to elaborate more?
It doesn't relate to SetPageUptodate.
I just want to say that some patterns might not be benefited.
These helpers are useful indeed.
>
> > btw, I noticed the patchset versions are PATCH [3], RFC PATCH [4],
> > RFC PATCH v2 [5], RFC PATCH v3 [6], PATCH [7]. Although I also
> > noticed the patchset title was once changed, but it could be some
> > harder to trace the whole history discussion.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200419051404.GA30986@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1/
> > [2]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200427025752.GA3979@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1/
> > [3]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200418225123.31850-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> > [4]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200426214925.10970-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> > [5]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200430214450.10662-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> > [6]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200507214400.15785-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> > [7]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200517214718.468-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
>
> All the cover letter of those series are here.
>
> RFC
> V3:https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200507214400.15785-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> RFC
> V2:https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200430214450.10662-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
> RFC:https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200426214925.10970-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
>
> And the latest one:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200430214450.10662-1-guoqing.ji...@cloud.ionos.com/
Yeah, I noticed these links in this cover letter as well.
I was just little confused about these version numbers, especially
when the original patchset "[PATCH 0/5] export __clear_page_buffers
to cleanup code" included. That is minor as well.
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
>
> Thanks,
> Guoqing
