From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com (mail-wr1-f49.google.com [209.85.221.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 401B52222C8 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 22:11:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754691113; cv=none; b=OnNDsL7ynF0/MNdUyEihylZTYnIYFupGKP9RUfcGFirCh/d4uGOYZpBxoUusDKIYw9hQ1Wd4QrCXScLrze8zR2H3GJvPvhUEo3l21folXoUcU90XR0V3RfgKpPbSpXH2ct4xgngO0eNOFkNhWqTElf7/txG2+U5Xl9viGtN6rK8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754691113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sPot/QiJGx0ie2GqPuzcKoCFOI60aOBXfDEt5ep6Kl0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Va4BOOK2sKe9EPcgR/cQBKiiaLLQdcfyMeVNI25oXCyKc2kZ4Md5VU3+weSKiH0EsY80ACxHqxrZXzYcCMhDiwJWq/AqQNEdOBYJ/6ArszUBQ0n+9b9pTWmZo1/YZTcxXgQGkhxorcJyGFMjwBdf+R52VOFS+auTPhE64WStmiw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=KNljQvnm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="KNljQvnm" Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b78d337dd9so1596760f8f.3 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:11:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1754691108; x=1755295908; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vfp4XJviTGuQNIDYxaXXZY38lwfZr5BPome6oUUC1Fw=; b=KNljQvnmNTVxXm3LkWBnKj1BOzOvTLrIFWhq40frLzqh0T0/jP2KK3EXMCb1xv1U2b 6EzEVczFRSQ1a9ffbcnjWBouU3i2/6NmrTGxskcNZRGLmlPv3zz9Iv57z/+KazvKzmsO tPtHk7HytvbZSuCE/1eDq0xDbkG+iBObQoyyhZTDwjn5kM+t6BWNeGgKMCi0+BoBYW8B i0M38+zmZyPtKdB/bJ49cVxc7htRhVcVNqRGeY2107pBpPST4R4twnheYy06uZ0iP0Bc TXuR+NQo25wR/OvymkiLYp99jBRZt/ikXyGQXc0V+I9s0u26gKnm77GckjlJ9ELEUeOa W45Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1754691108; x=1755295908; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vfp4XJviTGuQNIDYxaXXZY38lwfZr5BPome6oUUC1Fw=; b=b8vnoHRLx6+UIEekcpp//K7hHZwbyb7k36XJV8SXeYp5Oxh0XknvPFaV4KwVcwAOEF RxlwArJTyh88KD22UwdH2F+VUWrJ84Up/80pNHJlukwnjQUuMpIyJhpIdQoas3visQou IgyjVnJdDwrIHldeYz8ttU/6CERYrUv7Ns+5zAYitXY5lzY3ULNHEMk/gHbQEG0UXQwr Vwodx6ZvDDWsBdOf7gfYl8GmarD/O8HpBjMHkbqYewTkN6l2XiWytzJ3potZPHX/xEnO 3vwRwm7WrIZFFkY9TzGusuiHvtxjXNwDE5qzaIhoi3oaHqO6F8YhwUuKfg1cfP8LXLak Gixw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyxElFWfEVHGNVBzPbUdWqmkCKB12o0Vtn5CxYcCAEG+uoNywVQ OjtvwJqr7RhCQip28IqUQq3Z756S3HjBbJVZtMVQCMFiO0evFOcnmg3B7U60wupmwio= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncu31++ifyA1ChEwJrjNGqDWaqBxiVjmz7b01XUZSGPVgLHfyWggumr+QcTUdNl ZVRlqWAvl6OBtY7+kDSSX2+LihYkTI4IKW+XwxrhMZdczDl02ghQjoMPlHuqO4ExW2TImNrkjKm 4PGY6M/SyIAPR1MUx7bRwzZKZWiIxSi0Rjn0+GK2xcKSFlgiZMWxBwf0FZMKMeQwUS3Nzk1lLwI jEW8jb7cssXkPit76ivMRpTwbmt81xn1ZEpkni13VckughTPiS1JngaK/HiDdKJXI+zLBFkbrhC 7sloBBG6q9bKsSumMndstHRc70a6cx+Ik3tx+YLN+0pLVSy9+DxHVTf8hr9pDfTykdoBVgQACoZ 2Vckq5Gk/ZtvjqfauTwbh+7p2ym4nrznWP3gI4UX3Xl901K6asKlcjmEeUTuJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFIxLKMLKj0aUzzhwq3MMNuW4vixZGGnupJ71Z/AHI1G3sTObVSeFAVOad94beA9NPbKPu3+g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1ac6:b0:3b7:7749:aa92 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b900b6ab1emr3552969f8f.58.1754691108438; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2403:580d:fda1::299? (2403-580d-fda1--299.ip6.aussiebb.net. [2403:580d:fda1::299]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-76bcce8f800sm21219043b3a.42.2025.08.08.15.11.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <035ad34e-fb1e-414f-8d3c-839188cfa387@suse.com> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 07:41:43 +0930 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ext4 iomap warning during btrfs/136 (yes, it's from btrfs test cases) To: Theodore Ts'o , Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-ext4 , linux-btrfs , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" References: <9b650a52-9672-4604-a765-bb6be55d1e4a@gmx.com> <4ef2476f-50c3-424d-927d-100e305e1f8e@gmx.com> <20250808121659.GC778805@mit.edu> Content-Language: en-US From: Qu Wenruo Autocrypt: addr=wqu@suse.com; keydata= xsBNBFnVga8BCACyhFP3ExcTIuB73jDIBA/vSoYcTyysFQzPvez64TUSCv1SgXEByR7fju3o 8RfaWuHCnkkea5luuTZMqfgTXrun2dqNVYDNOV6RIVrc4YuG20yhC1epnV55fJCThqij0MRL 1NxPKXIlEdHvN0Kov3CtWA+R1iNN0RCeVun7rmOrrjBK573aWC5sgP7YsBOLK79H3tmUtz6b 9Imuj0ZyEsa76Xg9PX9Hn2myKj1hfWGS+5og9Va4hrwQC8ipjXik6NKR5GDV+hOZkktU81G5 gkQtGB9jOAYRs86QG/b7PtIlbd3+pppT0gaS+wvwMs8cuNG+Pu6KO1oC4jgdseFLu7NpABEB AAHNGFF1IFdlbnJ1byA8d3F1QHN1c2UuY29tPsLAlAQTAQgAPgIbAwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIE FgIDAQIeAQIXgBYhBC3fcuWlpVuonapC4cI9kfOhJf6oBQJnEXVgBQkQ/lqxAAoJEMI9kfOh Jf6o+jIH/2KhFmyOw4XWAYbnnijuYqb/obGae8HhcJO2KIGcxbsinK+KQFTSZnkFxnbsQ+VY fvtWBHGt8WfHcNmfjdejmy9si2jyy8smQV2jiB60a8iqQXGmsrkuR+AM2V360oEbMF3gVvim 2VSX2IiW9KERuhifjseNV1HLk0SHw5NnXiWh1THTqtvFFY+CwnLN2GqiMaSLF6gATW05/sEd V17MdI1z4+WSk7D57FlLjp50F3ow2WJtXwG8yG8d6S40dytZpH9iFuk12Sbg7lrtQxPPOIEU rpmZLfCNJJoZj603613w/M8EiZw6MohzikTWcFc55RLYJPBWQ+9puZtx1DopW2jOwE0EWdWB rwEIAKpT62HgSzL9zwGe+WIUCMB+nOEjXAfvoUPUwk+YCEDcOdfkkM5FyBoJs8TCEuPXGXBO Cl5P5B8OYYnkHkGWutAVlUTV8KESOIm/KJIA7jJA+Ss9VhMjtePfgWexw+P8itFRSRrrwyUf E+0WcAevblUi45LjWWZgpg3A80tHP0iToOZ5MbdYk7YFBE29cDSleskfV80ZKxFv6koQocq0 vXzTfHvXNDELAuH7Ms/WJcdUzmPyBf3Oq6mKBBH8J6XZc9LjjNZwNbyvsHSrV5bgmu/THX2n g/3be+iqf6OggCiy3I1NSMJ5KtR0q2H2Nx2Vqb1fYPOID8McMV9Ll6rh8S8AEQEAAcLAfAQY AQgAJgIbDBYhBC3fcuWlpVuonapC4cI9kfOhJf6oBQJnEXWBBQkQ/lrSAAoJEMI9kfOhJf6o cakH+QHwDszsoYvmrNq36MFGgvAHRjdlrHRBa4A1V1kzd4kOUokongcrOOgHY9yfglcvZqlJ qfa4l+1oxs1BvCi29psteQTtw+memmcGruKi+YHD7793zNCMtAtYidDmQ2pWaLfqSaryjlzR /3tBWMyvIeWZKURnZbBzWRREB7iWxEbZ014B3gICqZPDRwwitHpH8Om3eZr7ygZck6bBa4MU o1XgbZcspyCGqu1xF/bMAY2iCDcq6ULKQceuKkbeQ8qxvt9hVxJC2W3lHq8dlK1pkHPDg9wO JoAXek8MF37R8gpLoGWl41FIUb3hFiu3zhDDvslYM4BmzI18QgQTQnotJH8= In-Reply-To: <20250808121659.GC778805@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 在 2025/8/8 21:46, Theodore Ts'o 写道: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 06:20:56PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> 在 2025/8/8 17:22, Qu Wenruo 写道: >>> Hi, >>> >>> [BACKGROUND] >>> Recently I'm testing btrfs with 16KiB block size. >>> >>> Currently btrfs is artificially limiting subpage block size to 4K. >>> But there is a simple patch to change it to support all block sizes <= >>> page size in my branch: >>> >>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/larger_bs_support >>> >>> [IOMAP WARNING] >>> And I'm running into a very weird kernel warning at btrfs/136, with 16K >>> block size and 64K page size. >>> >>> The problem is, the problem happens with ext3 (using ext4 modeule) with >>> 16K block size, and no btrfs is involved yet. > > > Thanks for the bug report! This looks like it's an issue with using > indirect block-mapped file with a 16k block size. I tried your > reproducer using a 1k block size on an x86_64 system, which is how I > test problem caused by the block size < page size. It didn't > reproduce there, so it looks like it really needs a 16k block size. > > Can you say something about what system were you running your testing > on --- was it an arm64 system, or a powerpc 64 system (the two most > common systems with page size > 4k)? (I assume you're not trying to > do this on an Itanic. :-) And was the page size 16k or 64k? The architecture is aarch64, the host board is Rock5B (cheap and fast enough), the test machine is a VM on that board, with ovmf as the UEFI firmware. The kernel is configured to use 64K page size, the *ext3* system is using 16K block size. Currently I tried the following combination with 64K page size and ext3, the result looks like the following - 2K block size - 4K block size All fine - 8K block size - 16K block size All the same kernel warning and never ending fsstress - 32K block size - 64K block size All fine I am surprised as you that, not all subpage block size are having problems, just 2 of the less common combinations failed. And the most common ones (4K, page size) are all fine. Finally, if using ext4 not ext3, all combinations above are fine again. So I ran out of ideas why only 2 block sizes fail here... Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, > > - Ted >