From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (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 AE2A722D4C0; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744134688; cv=none; b=L1AZKUt3kF7ZK7K/W/Ilk+IUFkYM4iMBfvSC5bO3O+dW80O1R0DAdRie7k+7nojo3g43/X2WqJqXpTeDSciW2qljPqtwRHKp3bhsYm/FNlxm7BnTfRMXGT7vGN+roVowMDcwh18RcdNxfC17i9d3QAvQSu8PW0Mpnk8tlZsLSGo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744134688; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nyTUNsuPjPGzyNEqBbLpwSD1kFm8MNqPPii+JsWSl4s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BXxJBZDiL+dirrNRVP9jcHCI9lJ9gbcfpg8sm3GEDkfXvLwsq+uN6PVvB0qn5K9yAxKgvZ9KRDkBIdynUcOFL4hf5/xrOXQ4g3oDzjSaDBgtg22K9ecWAFIq/zO2VhSjYYGokOaarWj0o9na4+ZkqUjFzxFtsB7Eenp6UybUx0k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=oRpD+7Vp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="oRpD+7Vp" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=LRoGsm36GWYvDS1XW5mGL/7sKrvWfbhdm+vbaWZ07xI=; b=oRpD+7Vp0e6qyj9DRDn2GCOlm3 QtllRxj5NJ/kOR/p0aXCC/crlROlM3tpCnE2R9jbNekSugaTVJeIPnSACelAiyHiY6eWW7OiJ/ur/ QMAM8mcWeNn88uJmLjz/63ZWtc1Gztmxkg2io6kDrtossNunvtlsw6kHzOqudKBBVzSqO5+iKhMK8 euIj2dPnhebY2hqhmBXiIJ3VGAAKoDZCOPcJAulPYz0V1dtSqNxa/XYk0QPIopMuVprax9sVnU/6Z 7G4L9yb9UvvMamiEpwksfST5cchHFB5oUJ5OaZ/o16Y241oWm/8SVoiAFs/nqeDzZHMJIJ1cY+9hI U2ezk9IQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1u2D6Q-00000000JDI-1K6g; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 17:51:14 +0000 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 18:51:14 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Luis Chamberlain , David Bueso , Jan Kara , Kefeng Wang , Tso Ted , Ritesh Harjani , Johannes Weiner , Oliver Sang , David Hildenbrand , Alistair Popple , linux-mm@kvack.org, Christian Brauner , Hannes Reinecke , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, John Garry , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it, Pankaj Raghav , Daniel Gomez , Dave Chinner , gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [block/bdev] 3c20917120: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/util.c Message-ID: References: <20250331074541.gK4N_A2Q@linutronix.de> <20250408164307.GK6266@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250408174855.GI6307@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20250408174855.GI6307@frogsfrogsfrogs> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:48:55AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:24:40AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 10:06 AM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > Fun > > > puzzle for the community is figuring out *why* oh why did a large folio > > > end up being used on buffer-heads for your use case *without* an LBS > > > device (logical block size) being present, as I assume you didn't have > > > one, ie say a nvme or virtio block device with logical block size > > > > PAGE_SIZE. The area in question would trigger on folio migration *only* > > > if you are migrating large buffer-head folios. We only create those > > > > To be clear, large folios for buffer-heads. > > > if > > > you have an LBS device and are leveraging the block device cache or a > > > filesystem with buffer-heads with LBS (they don't exist yet other than > > > the block device cache). > > My guess is that udev or something tries to read the disk label in > response to some uevent (mkfs, mount, unmount, etc), which creates a > large folio because min_order > 0, and attaches a buffer head. There's > a separate crash report that I'll cc you on. But you said: > the machine is arm64 with 64k basepages and 4k fsblock size: so that shouldn't be using large folios because you should have set the order to 0. Right? Or did you mis-speak and use a 4K PAGE_SIZE kernel with a 64k fsblocksize?