Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] erofs: mm/pagemap: add readahead_folio_last() to avoid folio->private

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/8/26 04:56, Zi Yan wrote:
> erofs needs to traverse readahead folios in reverse order to achieve
> maximum performance by
> 1. reading all folios from readahead_folio();
> 2. storing the prior folio pointer in folio->private;
> 3. traverse from the last folio to the first one.
> 
> Add readahead_folio_last() to achieve the same function without using
> folio->private. __readahead_advance() helper shares readahead_control
> adjustment code among __readahead_folio(), readahead_folio_last(), and
> __readahead_batch() by checking new private member, _forward, of
> readahead_control.
> 
> It prepares for a future commit that replaces PG_private checks with
> !folio->private checks. After switching the checks, erofs's use of
> folio->private without bumping folio refcount can cause unexpected
> outcomes, e.g., in filemap_release_folio(), try_to_free_buffers() becomes
> reachable.

Ah, I was just about to ask. So it's really about folios never using
folio->private manually (without the attach/detach).

> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-8
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gao Xiang <xiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Yue Hu <zbestahu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hongbo Li <hongbohbli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chunhai Guo <guochunhai@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-erofs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  fs/erofs/zdata.c        | 13 +++---------
>  include/linux/pagemap.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/zdata.c b/fs/erofs/zdata.c
> index e1e25ca0d1904..78fd7d980e957 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/zdata.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/zdata.c
> @@ -1898,21 +1898,14 @@ static void z_erofs_readahead(struct readahead_control *rac)
>  	struct inode *realinode = erofs_real_inode(sharedinode, &need_iput);
>  	Z_EROFS_DEFINE_FRONTEND(f, realinode, sharedinode, readahead_pos(rac));
>  	unsigned int nrpages = readahead_count(rac);
> -	struct folio *head = NULL, *folio;
> +	struct folio *folio;
>  	int err;
>  
>  	trace_erofs_readahead(realinode, readahead_index(rac), nrpages, false);
>  	z_erofs_pcluster_readmore(&f, rac, true);
> -	while ((folio = readahead_folio(rac))) {
> -		folio->private = head;
> -		head = folio;
> -	}
> -
> -	/* traverse in reverse order for best metadata I/O performance */
> -	while (head) {
> -		folio = head;
> -		head = folio_get_private(folio);
>  
> +	/* traverse from last to first for best metadata I/O performance */
> +	while ((folio = readahead_folio_last(rac))) {

Intuitively, this should be called readahead_folio_reverse /
readahead_folio_reversed, thinking of list_for_each_entry_reverse()?

	list_for_each_entry_reverse - iterate backwards over list of given type.

or maybe readahead_folio_backwards (which matches the forward below)

But I'm not a readahead expert :)

>  		err = z_erofs_scan_folio(&f, folio, true);
>  		if (err && err != -EINTR)
>  			erofs_err(realinode->i_sb, "readahead error at folio %lu @ nid %llu",
> diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> index 939f3a5e973f6..2257df004305e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> @@ -1415,6 +1415,7 @@ struct readahead_control {
>  	bool dropbehind;
>  	bool _workingset;
>  	unsigned long _pflags;
> +	bool _forward;
>  };
>  
>  #define DEFINE_READAHEAD(ractl, f, r, m, i)				\
> @@ -1479,18 +1480,25 @@ void page_cache_async_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
>  	page_cache_async_ra(&ractl, folio, req_count);
>  }
>  
> +static inline void __readahead_advance(struct readahead_control *rac)
> +{
> +	if (rac->_forward)
> +		rac->_index += rac->_batch_count;

No expert, but shouldn't we decrement the _index somewhere in the other case? Or
where is that done? A comment might help :)


-- 
Cheers,

David