From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09AEA12A160 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712665201; cv=none; b=dG1g1zrNuTUSQqRIboEPQHWIyIXn1f1ni7qvcLIegmZxTgGbwfS23WuElQvKcmPAx1zLLn0VOWRJAZHj2pPlac+CwJa7pxEXzMoGR43PfgJ84aGvTx+f0hWFOxV1+uevAcHGANxtzwgb8SIVWdwbkj9ArfNVM2BMO2+Z5MGcR0s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712665201; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8txGig02p3dYQPbvCXxiUyZnAOFbmF5y2JKedJ7p9uE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SW75HN+Fi/s5YmWFkmviUt//D13gLj/aBQXOx2E8dwKNYzNfcz4xHMnyvOP+5jAsNmumb8dCrCXc2JFnVbEjwjELD/9vivzGVTyb4gBZpHPC3/mJoGjhzrbVG0niWo707MA48Z5GODxDVNB8FbiYB3DzaGY2zKZ7Id+rqauoyNU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=ZFG+P3Oj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ZFG+P3Oj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1712665198; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=38ANcwOzb+SJPN9KWn5q/+NYLzX+W+zXEwG2dC5+jdI=; b=ZFG+P3OjLcZZCXWSvHaawZaAzLj3c2FX5GqDRdgXMe2vsDVQhqu7cJ0SJ4iCvk3Q96XTsr uzfhV0zoyYQ27x6U0zJIurPTcOOdY92qR1MkySD/V8bmpg5meKQyfG/zcOg0eLHAax6+C2 VSlZjZL9VBiI3PtUi5YYAmfp0m0wzi4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-528-NqVkThPwOQaX1QuLJ2zygQ-1; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 08:19:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: NqVkThPwOQaX1QuLJ2zygQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30B0580171E; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.16.57]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3C6F47E; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:19:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:21:51 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Kent Overstreet Cc: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, Eric Van Hensbergen , v9fs@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] bcachefs: fiemap delalloc support and cleanup Message-ID: References: <20240408144846.1001243-1-bfoster@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:33:05PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:48:42AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Here's v3 of the fiemap delalloc support patches for bcachefs. The main > > difference from v2 is that the pagecache seek calls are now using > > nonblocking mode to avoid deadlocks between fiemap and the write path. > > The write path locks in folio -> extent btree order while fiemap walks > > the extent btree and scans for folios in transaction context. Therefore, > > the latter must restart the iterating transaction in the event of folio > > trylock failure and restart the scan from where it left off. > > > > The series is pushed to CI via my test branch, as usual: > > > > https://evilpiepirate.org/~testdashboard/ci?branch=bfoster > > So our testing is currently busted because of a bug in 9pfs - I need you > to rebase onto my 9p-revert branch so we can get test results we can > look at: > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/log/?h=9p-revert > Huh, Ok. I also noticed an issue recently related to some sysfs directory structure changes. That required me to rebase on bcachefs-testing, though it appears that has since been resolved in master (and 9p-revert). I just rebased my test branch on 9p-revert and pushed. What failures are being caused by 9p, anyways? > Eric, is this getting fixed? If it's not, and _soon_, we need to send > this revert to Linus - then put it through more testing, more asserts, > whatever you need and send it again next cycle, _after_ you've figured > out what wwent wrong. > > Patch series looks good, though - if there's nothing you think needs > special attention I'll go ahead and merge it. > Not really, mainly just making sure the new locking and transaction restart parts looked sane. > I wonder if at some point we could clean up the indirect extent lookup, > that's common between this code and the read paths, but that's low > priority. > I'll make a note to read more into that area. Thanks. Brian