On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 07:51:10PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [ Upstream commit 7ffe3de53a885dbb5836541c2178bd07d1bad7df ] > > Callers of __find_get_block() may or may not allow for blocking > semantics, and is currently assumed that it will not. Layout > two paths based on this. The the private_lock scheme will > continued to be used for atomic contexts. Otherwise take the > folio lock instead, which protects the buffers, such as > vs migration and try_to_free_buffers(). > > Per the "hack idea", the latter can alleviate contention on > the private_lock for bdev mappings. For reasons of determinism > and avoid making bugs hard to reproduce, the trylocking is not > attempted. > > No change in semantics. All lookup users still take the spinlock. > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://kdevops.org/ext4/v6.15-rc2.html # [0] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aAAEvcrmREWa1SKF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ # [1] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250418015921.132400-2-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Tested-by: kdevops@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> Same no way. This is pushing it. Luis
