On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:02:24AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/12, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > @@ -2994,13 +2998,38 @@ static int f2fs_write_cache_pages(struct
> > address_space *mapping,
> > tag_pages_for_writeback(mapping, index, end);
> > done_index = index;
> > while (!done && !retry && (index <= end)) {
> > - nr_pages = find_get_pages_range_tag(mapping, &index, end,
> > - tag, F2FS_ONSTACK_PAGES, pages);
> > - if (nr_pages == 0)
> > + nr_pages = 0;
> > +again:
> > + nr_folios = filemap_get_folios_tag(mapping, &index, end,
> > + tag, &fbatch);
>
> Can't folio handle this internally with F2FS_ONSTACK_PAGES and pages?
I really want to discourage filesystems from doing this kind of thing.
The folio_batch is the natural size for doing batches of work, and
having the consistency across all these APIs of passing in a folio_batch
is quite valuable. I understand f2fs wants to get more memory in a
single batch, but the right way to do that is to use larger folios.
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
