Re: small writeback fixes v2

[Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 05:16:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 08:49:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > I ran this through the CI
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> > [ 3461.147888] assertion failed: block_group->io_ctl.inode == NULL, in
> > fs/btrfs/block-group.c:4256
> 
> Hmm, this looks so unrelated that it leaves me puzzled.  How confident
> are you that this is a new issue based on the overall test setup?
> 

This is the first I've seen this, so it could be new to for-next, your stuff, or
just simply haven't hit it in the ~20ish runs I've done with this new setup.
I'm going to go back and test these other ones with just for-next, but I wanted
to get the results to you in case they rang a bell or you wanted to debug
locally.

> > I also got an EBUSY trying to umount $SCRATCH_MNT with generic/475 with
> 
> > on an ARM machine with 64kib pagesize.  Though I'm pretty sure you're not to
> > blame for that last failure.  Thanks,
> 
> Yes, I've seen EBUSY in 475 quite regulary even without the changes,
> I think I also mentioned it in reply to the other 475-related discussion
> we had.  I tried to debug it for a while but didn't manage to get far.
> 

Yeah it definitely reproduces on for-next, I'm debugging this right now so don't
worry about this thing.  Thanks,

Josef