Re:Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] f2fs: Zero f2fs_folio_state on allocation

["Nanzhe Zhao" <nzzhao@126.com>]

Hi Barry:

>At 2026-01-06 11:38:49, "Barry Song" <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 12:12 AM Nanzhe Zhao <nzzhao@126.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> f2fs_folio_state is attached to folio->private and is expected to start
>>> with read_pages_pending == 0.  However, the structure was allocated from
>>> ffs_entry_slab without being fully initialized, which can leave
>>> read_pages_pending with stale values.
>>>
>>> Allocate the object with __GFP_ZERO so all fields are reliably zeroed at
>>> creation time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nanzhe Zhao <nzzhao@126.com>
>>
>>
>>We already have GFP_F2FS_ZERO, but it includes GFP_IO. Should we
>>introduce another variant, such as GFP_F2FS_NOIO_ZERO (or similar)?
>>Overall, LGTM.
>>

I'm still not fully understand about the exact semantics of GFP_NOIO vs GFP_NOFS. 
I did a bit of digging and, in the current buffered read / readahead context, it seems 
like there may be no meaningful difference for the purpose of avoiding direct-reclaim 
recursion deadlocks?

My current (possibly incomplete) understanding is that in may_enter_fs(), GFP_NOIO 
only changes behavior for swapcache folios, rather than file-backed folios that are
currently in the read IO path,and the swap writeback path won't recurse back into f2fs's 
own writeback function anyway. (On phones there usually isn't  a swap partition; for zram 
 I guess swap writeback is effectively writing to RAM via the zram block device ? 
Sorry for  not being very familiar with the details there.)

I noticed iomap's ifs_alloc uses GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL. So if GFP_NOFS is acceptable here, 
we could simply use GFP_F2FS_ZERO and avoid introducing a new GFP_F2FS_NOIO_ZERO variant?

Just curious.I will vote  for GFP_NOIO  from semantic clarity perspective here.

Thanks,
Nanzhe