Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] fs: enhance and rename shutdown() callback to remove_bdev()

Christian Brauner
2025-07-08T07:55:20Z

On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 05:45:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:52:47AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >
> >
> > 在 2025/7/8 08:32, Dave Chinner 写道:
> > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:12:29AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > > Currently all the filesystems implementing the
> > > > super_opearations::shutdown() callback can not afford losing a device.
> > > >
> > > > Thus fs_bdev_mark_dead() will just call the shutdown() callback for the
> > > > involved filesystem.
> > > >
> > > > But it will no longer be the case, with multi-device filesystems like
> > > > btrfs and bcachefs the filesystem can handle certain device loss without
> > > > shutting down the whole filesystem.
> > > >
> > > > To allow those multi-device filesystems to be integrated to use
> > > > fs_holder_ops:
> > > >
> > > > - Replace super_opearation::shutdown() with
> > > > super_opearations::remove_bdev()
> > > > To better describe when the callback is called.
> > >
> > > This conflates cause with action.
> > >
> > > The shutdown callout is an action that the filesystem must execute,
> > > whilst "remove bdev" is a cause notification that might require an
> > > action to be take.
> > >
> > > Yes, the cause could be someone doing hot-unplug of the block
> > > device, but it could also be something going wrong in software
> > > layers below the filesystem. e.g. dm-thinp having an unrecoverable
> > > corruption or ENOSPC errors.
> > >
> > > We already have a "cause" notification: blk_holder_ops->mark_dead().
> > >
> > > The generic fs action that is taken by this notification is
> > > fs_bdev_mark_dead(). That action is to invalidate caches and shut
> > > down the filesystem.
> > >
> > > btrfs needs to do something different to a blk_holder_ops->mark_dead
> > > notification. i.e. it needs an action that is different to
> > > fs_bdev_mark_dead().
> > >
> > > Indeed, this is how bcachefs already handles "single device
> > > died" events for multi-device filesystems - see
> > > bch2_fs_bdev_mark_dead().
> >
> > I do not think it's the correct way to go, especially when there is already
> > fs_holder_ops.
> >
> > We're always going towards a more generic solution, other than letting the
> > individual fs to do the same thing slightly differently.
>
> On second thought -- it's weird that you'd flush the filesystem and
> shrink the inode/dentry caches in a "your device went away" handler.
> Fancy filesystems like bcachefs and btrfs would likely just shift IO to
> a different bdev, right? And there's no good reason to run shrinkers on
> either of those fses, right?
>
> > Yes, the naming is not perfect and mixing cause and action, but the end
> > result is still a more generic and less duplicated code base.
>
> I think dchinner makes a good point that if your filesystem can do
> something clever on device removal, it should provide its own block
> device holder ops instead of using fs_holder_ops. I don't understand
> why you need a "generic" solution for btrfs when it's not going to do
> what the others do anyway.

I think letting filesystems implement their own holder ops should be
avoided if we can. Christoph may chime in here. I have no appettite for
exporting stuff like get_bdev_super() unless absolutely necessary. We
tried to move all that handling into the VFS to eliminate a slew of
deadlocks we detected and fixed. I have no appetite to repeat that
cycle.

The shutdown method is implemented only by block-based filesystems and
arguably shutdown was always a misnomer because it assumed that the
filesystem needs to actually shut down when it is called. IOW, we made
it so that it is a call to action but that doesn't have to be the case.
Calling it ->remove_bdev() is imo the correct thing because it gives
block based filesystem the ability to handle device events how they see
fit.

Once we will have non-block based filesystems that need a method to
always shut down the filesystem itself we might have to revisit this
design anyway but no one had that use-case yet.

>
> Awkward naming is often a sign that further thought (or at least
> separation of code) is needed.
>
> As an aside:
> 'twould be nice if we could lift the *FS_IOC_SHUTDOWN dispatch out of
> everyone's ioctl functions into the VFS, and then move the "I am dead"
> state into super_block so that you could actually shut down any
> filesystem, not just the seven that currently implement it.

That goes back to my earlier point. Fwiw, I think that's valuable work.