From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D59C001DF for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231250AbjGaHLs (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 03:11:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49604 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231255AbjGaHL3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 03:11:29 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53290210A for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 00:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 1CAE967373; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:02:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:02:51 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Qu Wenruo Cc: Chris Mason , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Btrfs: only subtract from len_to_oe_boundary when it is tracking an extent Message-ID: <20230731070251.GB31096@lst.de> References: <20230730190226.4001117-1-clm@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:27:02AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Personally speaking, I think we'd better moving the ordered extent based > split (only for zoned devices) to btrfs bio layer. That goes completely counter the direction I've been working to. The ordered extent is the "container" for writeback, so having a bio that spawns them creates all kinds of problems. Thats's the reason why we now have a bbio->ordered pointer now. > Another concern is, how we could hit a bio which has a size larger than > U32_MAX? > > The bio->bi_iter.size is only unsigned int, it should never exceed U32_MAX. > > It would help a lot if you can provide a backtrace of such unaligned bio. That's indeed a bit weird.