similar to: remove most callers of write_one_page v4

Hi all, this series removes most users of the write_one_page API. These helpers internally call ->writepage which we are gradually removing from the kernel. Changes since v2: - more minix error handling fixes Changes since v1: - drop the btrfs changes (queue up in the btrfs tree) - drop the finaly move to jfs (can't be done without the btrfs patches) - fix the existing minix code to

The patch titled Subject: ufs: don't flush page immediately for DIRSYNC directories has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is ufs-dont-flush-page-immediately-for-dirsync-directories.patch This patch will shortly appear at

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:22:46PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 12.11.24 14:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:10:06AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 12.11.24 06:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > I don't want you to respin. I think this is a bad idea. > > > > > > I'm hoping you'll find some more

Device exclusive page table entries are used to prevent CPU access to a page whilst it is being accessed from a device. Typically this is used to implement atomic operations when the underlying bus does not support atomic access. When a CPU thread encounters a device exclusive entry it locks the page and restores the original entry after calling mmu notifiers to signal drivers that exclusive

Use filemap_write_and_wait_range to write back the range of the dirty page instead of write_one_page in preparation of removing write_one_page and eventually ->writepage. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at linux.alibaba.com> --- fs/ocfs2/refcounttree.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5

On 12.11.24 14:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:10:06AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 12.11.24 06:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:26:54AM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote: >>>> Thanks for your comments Jason, and for clarifying my cover letter >>>> David. I think David has covered everything, and I'll make

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:10:06AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 12.11.24 06:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:26:54AM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote: > > > Thanks for your comments Jason, and for clarifying my cover letter > > > David. I think David has covered everything, and I'll make sure to > > > clarify this in the cover letter

One fix and a minor cleanup. Only compile-tested due to lack of HW, so I'd be happy if someone with access to HW could test. But not sure how easy this is to trigger. Likely some concurrent MADV_DONTNEED on the PTE we just converted might be able to trigger it. Cc: Karol Herbst <kherbst at redhat.com> Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr at

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:26:54AM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote: > Thanks for your comments Jason, and for clarifying my cover letter > David. I think David has covered everything, and I'll make sure to > clarify this in the cover letter when I respin. I don't want you to respin. I think this is a bad idea.

*** BLURB HERE *** Bean Huo (5): fs/buffer: clean up block_commit_write fs/buffer.c: convert block_commit_write to return void ext4: No need to check return value of block_commit_write() fs/ocfs2: No need to check return value of block_commit_write() udf: No need to check return value of block_commit_write() fs/buffer.c | 24 +++++++-----------------

Device exclusive page table entries are used to prevent CPU access to a page whilst it is being accessed from a device. Typically this is used to implement atomic operations when the underlying bus does not support atomic access. When a CPU thread encounters a device exclusive entry it locks the page and restores the original entry after calling mmu notifiers to signal drivers that exclusive

The patch titled Subject: ocfs2: don't use write_one_page in ocfs2_duplicate_clusters_by_page has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is ocfs2-dont-use-write_one_page-in-ocfs2_duplicate_clusters_by_page.patch This patch will shortly appear at

John Hubbard <jhubbard at nvidia.com> writes: > On 3/28/23 20:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > ... >>> + if (!get_page_unless_zero(vmf->page)) >>> + return 0; >> From a folio point of view: what the hell are you doing here? Tail >> pages don't have individual refcounts; all the refcounts are actually I had stuck with using the page because none of

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 06:30:20PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi all, > > this series removes most users of the write_one_page API. These helpers > internally call ->writepage which we are gradually removing from the > kernel. > > Changes since v2: > - more minix error handling fixes > > Changes since v1: > - drop the btrfs changes (queue up in the

On 12.11.24 06:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:26:54AM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote: >> Thanks for your comments Jason, and for clarifying my cover letter >> David. I think David has covered everything, and I'll make sure to >> clarify this in the cover letter when I respin. > > I don't want you to respin. I think this is a bad idea. I'm

On 08.11.24 18:05, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 04:20:30PM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote: >> Some folios, such as hugetlb folios and zone device folios, >> require special handling when the folio's reference count reaches >> 0, before being freed. Moreover, guest_memfd folios will likely >> require special handling to notify it once a folio's

On 3/28/23 20:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote: ... >> + if (!get_page_unless_zero(vmf->page)) >> + return 0; > > From a folio point of view: what the hell are you doing here? Tail > pages don't have individual refcounts; all the refcounts are actually ohh, and I really should have caught that too. I plead spending too much time recently in a somewhat more driver-centric

The message from this sender included one or more files which could not be scanned for virus detection; do not open these files unless you are certain of the sender's intent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduce i_blockmask() to simplify code, which replace (i_blocksize(node) - 1). Like done in commit 93407472a21b("fs: add i_blocksize()").

>>> On integrated the gpu is tied into the coherency >>> fabric, so there it's not needed. >>> >>> I think the more fundamental question with both this function here and >>> with forced migration to device memory is that there's no guarantee it >>> will work out. >> >> Yes, in particular with device-exclusive, it doesn't

Introduce i_blockmask() to simplify code, which replace (i_blocksize(node) - 1). Like done in commit 93407472a21b("fs: add i_blocksize()"). Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li at vivo.com> --- v4: -drop ext4 patch -erofs patch based on mainline -a bit change in ocfs2 patch include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h