Re: [PATCH mmotm v2] tmpfs: do not allocate pages on read

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 02:59:05PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Mikulas asked in
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/alpine.LRH.2.02.2007210510230.6959@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Do we still need a0ee5ec520ed ("tmpfs: allocate on read when stacked")?
> 
> Lukas noticed this unusual behavior of loop device backed by tmpfs in
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20211126075100.gd64odg2bcptiqeb@work/
> 
> Normally, shmem_file_read_iter() copies the ZERO_PAGE when reading holes;
> but if it looks like it might be a read for "a stacking filesystem", it
> allocates actual pages to the page cache, and even marks them as dirty.
> And reads from the loop device do satisfy the test that is used.
> 
> This oddity was added for an old version of unionfs, to help to limit
> its usage to the limited size of the tmpfs mount involved; but about
> the same time as the tmpfs mod went in (2.6.25), unionfs was reworked
> to proceed differently; and the mod kept just in case others needed it.
> 
> Do we still need it? I cannot answer with more certainty than "Probably
> not". It's nasty enough that we really should try to delete it; but if
> a regression is reported somewhere, then we might have to revert later.
> 
> It's not quite as simple as just removing the test (as Mikulas did):
> xfstests generic/013 hung because splice from tmpfs failed on page not
> up-to-date and page mapping unset.  That can be fixed just by marking
> the ZERO_PAGE as Uptodate, which of course it is: do so in
> pagecache_init() - it might be useful to others than tmpfs.
> 
> My intention, though, was to stop using the ZERO_PAGE here altogether:
> surely iov_iter_zero() is better for this case?  Sadly not: it relies
> on clear_user(), and the x86 clear_user() is slower than its copy_user():
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2f5ca5e4-e250-a41c-11fb-a7f4ebc7e1c9@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> But while we are still using the ZERO_PAGE, let's stop dirtying its
> struct page cacheline with unnecessary get_page() and put_page().
> 
> Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>

I would have split the uptodate setting of ZERO_PAGE into a separate,
clearly documented patch, but otherwise this looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>