Re: [PATCH 03/15] md: use folio for bb_folio
Xiao Ni <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.raid |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALTww28tZDgBVy=G=doJQ3yfWtuiLk5QoMMyL1cmveacXHLynA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 8:11 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Li Nan <[email protected]> > > Convert bio_page to bio_folio and use it throughout. > > Signed-off-by: Li Nan <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/md/md.h | 3 ++- > drivers/md/md.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------ > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h > index 410f8a6b75e7..aa6d9df50fd0 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.h > +++ b/drivers/md/md.h > @@ -144,7 +144,8 @@ struct md_rdev { > struct block_device *bdev; /* block device handle */ > struct file *bdev_file; /* Handle from open for bdev */ > > - struct page *sb_page, *bb_page; > + struct page *sb_page; > + struct folio *bb_folio; > int sb_loaded; > __u64 sb_events; > sector_t data_offset; /* start of data in array */ > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > index 9dfd6f8da5b8..0732bbcdb95d 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > @@ -1073,9 +1073,9 @@ void md_rdev_clear(struct md_rdev *rdev) > rdev->sb_start = 0; > rdev->sectors = 0; > } > - if (rdev->bb_page) { > - put_page(rdev->bb_page); > - rdev->bb_page = NULL; > + if (rdev->bb_folio) { > + folio_put(rdev->bb_folio); > + rdev->bb_folio = NULL; > } > badblocks_exit(&rdev->badblocks); > } > @@ -1909,9 +1909,10 @@ static int super_1_load(struct md_rdev *rdev, struct md_rdev *refdev, int minor_ > > rdev->desc_nr = le32_to_cpu(sb->dev_number); > > - if (!rdev->bb_page) { > - rdev->bb_page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!rdev->bb_page) > + if (!rdev->bb_folio) { > + rdev->bb_folio = folio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, 0); > + > + if (!rdev->bb_folio) > return -ENOMEM; > } > if ((le32_to_cpu(sb->feature_map) & MD_FEATURE_BAD_BLOCKS) && > @@ -1930,10 +1931,10 @@ static int super_1_load(struct md_rdev *rdev, struct md_rdev *refdev, int minor_ > if (offset == 0) > return -EINVAL; > bb_sector = (long long)offset; > - if (!sync_page_io(rdev, bb_sector, sectors << 9, > - rdev->bb_page, REQ_OP_READ, true)) > + if (!sync_folio_io(rdev, bb_sector, sectors << 9, 0, > + rdev->bb_folio, REQ_OP_READ, true)) > return -EIO; > - bbp = (__le64 *)page_address(rdev->bb_page); > + bbp = (__le64 *)folio_address(rdev->bb_folio); > rdev->badblocks.shift = sb->bblog_shift; > for (i = 0 ; i < (sectors << (9-3)) ; i++, bbp++) { > u64 bb = le64_to_cpu(*bbp); > @@ -2300,7 +2301,7 @@ static void super_1_sync(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev) > md_error(mddev, rdev); > else { > struct badblocks *bb = &rdev->badblocks; > - __le64 *bbp = (__le64 *)page_address(rdev->bb_page); > + __le64 *bbp = (__le64 *)folio_address(rdev->bb_folio); > u64 *p = bb->page; > sb->feature_map |= cpu_to_le32(MD_FEATURE_BAD_BLOCKS); > if (bb->changed) { > @@ -2953,7 +2954,7 @@ void md_update_sb(struct mddev *mddev, int force_change) > md_write_metadata(mddev, rdev, > rdev->badblocks.sector, > rdev->badblocks.size << 9, > - rdev->bb_page, 0); > + folio_page(rdev->bb_folio, 0), 0); > rdev->badblocks.size = 0; > } > > @@ -3809,7 +3810,7 @@ int md_rdev_init(struct md_rdev *rdev) > rdev->sb_events = 0; > rdev->last_read_error = 0; > rdev->sb_loaded = 0; > - rdev->bb_page = NULL; > + rdev->bb_folio = NULL; > atomic_set(&rdev->nr_pending, 0); > atomic_set(&rdev->read_errors, 0); > atomic_set(&rdev->corrected_errors, 0); > -- > 2.39.2 > Hi Nan Bad block page is only one single page. I don't think it's necessary to use folio here. And it uses folio_page to get the page again. Or do you plan to replace all page apis to folio apis? Looking through all patches, sync_page_io is not removed. In patch02, it says sync_page_io will be removed. So maybe it's better to switch bb_page to bb_folio in your second patch set? And this patch set only focuses on replacing sync pages with folio. It's my 2 cents point. If you think it's better to change the bad block page here, I'm still ok. Best Regards Xiao