From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) (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 34E6736C5A1 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 07:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776842608; cv=none; b=IC0o38/l1uJRwRm3tPdTzdUCKwc9EYs+jx7Z9CDrFewasGHKQMz6nxqUnAGdh+vTM/Lazqw0ZcMYsZlW5drVGFpFObiwZVxImKO+xV9hql6jAbOm7q73V15UuZFURYfT0g0/6DuPLYAeqtrM/qQ7cV67brKfbYpoaav4BdzuLiw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776842608; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s4a8CirOVZrpCN3aae9qBvi6394BtqHJUVmjyzwIQJg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References; b=rayfCVu8CTjfzwh+Hl5XcxOdMgn7L7FjbPx28wmBBIDEboBpjtiU97esdhICPweiOHHjpITZm/zIoHfGoqutC8/u3/2D9uZt7MpUcc9Tv0moZwQZjM/VDJZtfZrIb3bn1ffxeleTiTWpFXwBGTqChlJOIDR9sr12n2FZ0+b2ztI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=mqbJxBlQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="mqbJxBlQ" Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-c70c112cb61so3424502a12.0 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:23:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1776842606; x=1777447406; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6GXQBvjZucb9BRi+RMNkbcMHqj4d7NoOUxb7617xRyM=; b=mqbJxBlQm3vy5/hGNsEBm1Yqp+zxNKdAks4pB1D6569DUWD1DM84eWJ5tGqOcp6ooI RjB5kDNVpNNhvdJtydUuYZSKcrpsa/H31Tk7eXgPQfmw8wvPTgWIF//aJblHxZYG6VIj /SBHxL/xllLOilo6FW0Y3deP/q6MG8EOZXoh22g7JP/fGvH/c2Z5ljB8DmES9ajE+DST 6KvNMPw1AsLNKc7hrZr0xx/nmubkLMkuNZEnyGQ2TDnmdlUH+0hBOD+JSjpxGfIS2b/Q /o4x9KMIXIoR7t3Jl2ieCSz7agE4RTCT3tn9YrxP1rq/4SoMyLwNAA1k/TEnlGtUd/Xa 1vKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1776842606; x=1777447406; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6GXQBvjZucb9BRi+RMNkbcMHqj4d7NoOUxb7617xRyM=; b=GpYjH0szZdGJddf9Yb/V6bsH8ANanPupgMtfoyIsxO4pMmiDOWCtPp9pCUwIgIGxpd 2ESXK3XXiBb+rmNC5QryjszA+zRmhn9YZpiAC9Zw+sKkon3rfUnWijqEoHcHm3AKLaRJ uBLrEQyaOBEO2eNz+Pngl79HJipVlyoGR5bQ3csQot2dqPXivp4eMT8TLF0pwA7dZBDH vCdSMiFgJnQ9OQ8OxfUzqIEyBIJ3FveChsHhpRbLyXZhSn57rbN+4bEjH7To/V3Av077 89D7kQYES5VF/iyzJUF6ZeGr1vug+SR7/fboea0HCD6lg2q5gI5+yVzykCBJlCsGIMS/ 9VXQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/fYEMZFzuDFrgI3iawiD7g8rvpP/wDdfzPcfC7xpIVoyRSpNwLQUcvMLnuyrgSe78yfrneJlL6QC1nOTiW@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyFiRxvgrkAAEdecrOSjgrC0GViA1ysuSjfZnG9qfhHWB8v4QzI 1OVshXAIw/JYMlay7x4m4yABDxxBGHo8Zmpl2L+1t7GAw4AVJqqctSEJ X-Gm-Gg: AeBDietXj6qAJbA81Crm/iAgAaHMKUMOaykrMCpt3hlI4unrrITQ6Lzzifp5qUsFcXs qZxYgMAER2jNUjW0C1v1oy1re/stfa8ZIiNV4eh8NGRYssiDlBH7DMmOSmXcCR5fvS1lWnxFOQb uZ5yVBVDO3Bh4JxWkQ+VTUBBx8+j9Jy/yjNM1RNpOBckwzQAkVytKr86lbljR+O9lfiCVP41Vi8 nlaT/VRguJgPjsQza2ubnhIn+y/bte5symueb5k3G0lf6vOWoZ0YNwnaiRJQ4PfU8tXIjNfv+kp JKJyRPXdkcwkXxVCDCQxEDeRVmiR9ZD5iAu48dcDuu5CO6oJmaSpqIlpU710o+jcHAxi6hFLBOy uF7VGRSg+NoxwNnmZ6EhVAHPpky6ZG0zAL5aiJnuHmpZr1W6+IQl58kP4DjoyugBTjB2peSafWr vn0JzemGrU6USQdWQ03+jwgFbOWgLyd4184s81B+ovK8o= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:9992:b0:3a1:76d3:c1b0 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-3a176d45c75mr15445512637.22.1776842606435; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pve-server ([49.205.216.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-c7976f8f370sm12580681a12.7.2026.04.22.00.23.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:23:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Pankaj Raghav , Ojaswin Mujoo Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, john.g.garry@oracle.com, willy@infradead.org, hch@lst.de, jack@suse.cz, Luis Chamberlain , dgc@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, andres@anarazel.de, brauner@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" , Pankaj Raghav Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] iomap: Add initial support for buffered RWF_WRITETHROUGH In-Reply-To: <02ed5bfc-7ebf-41ee-bd8a-c8e030c35bca@linux.dev> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 12:10:20 +0530 Message-ID: <5x5jts4r.ritesh.list@gmail.com> References: <02ed5bfc-7ebf-41ee-bd8a-c8e030c35bca@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Pankaj Raghav writes: > On 4/21/2026 8:15 PM, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 01:56:02PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: >>>> + >>>> + if (wt_ops->writethrough_submit) >>>> + wt_ops->writethrough_submit(wt_ctx->inode, iomap, wt_ctx->bio_pos, >>>> + len); >>>> + >>>> + bio = bio_alloc(iomap->bdev, wt_ctx->nr_bvecs, REQ_OP_WRITE, GFP_NOFS); >>> >>> We might want to check if bio_alloc succeeded here. >> >> Hi Pankaj, so we pass GFP_NOFS which has GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM and >> according to comment over bio_alloc() >> >> * If %__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is set then bio_alloc will always be able to >> * allocate a bio. This is due to the mempool guarantees. To make this work, >> * callers must never allocate more than 1 bio at a time from the general pool. >> >> And we seem to be following this. >> > > Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. > >>> >>>> + bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = iomap_sector(iomap, wt_ctx->bio_pos); >>>> + bio->bi_end_io = iomap_writethrough_bio_end_io; >>>> + bio->bi_private = wt_ctx; >>>> + >>>> + for (i = 0; i < wt_ctx->nr_bvecs; i++) >>> In the unlikely scenario where we encounter an error, do we have to also >>> clear the writeback flag on all the folios that is part of this >>> bvec until now? >>> >>> Something like explicitly iterate over wt_ctx->bvec[0] through >>> wt_ctx->bvec[nr_bvecs - 1], manually call folio_end_writeback(bvec[i].bv_page) >>> on them, and then discard the bvecs by setting the nr_bvecs = 0; >>> >>> I am wondering if the folios that were processed until now will be in >>> PG_WRITEBACK state which can affect reclaim as we never clear the flag. >> >> Hey Pankaj, yes you are right. I think the error handling is a bit buggy >> and Sashiko has also pointed some of these. I'll take care of this in >> v3, thanks for pointing this out. >> > > FWIW, I got the following panic on xfs/011 (not reproducible all the time) when > I was running the xfstests with 16k block size with the writethrough patches: > Good point. I don't think so we tested large blocksize path currently. Ojaswin has been running fsx and fsstress and we didn't hit this scenario. So yes looks to be some corner path missed. Thanks for testing that. > [76313.736356] INFO: task fsstress:1845687 blocked for more than 122 seconds. > [76313.738751] Not tainted 7.0.0-08885-g97cbd56b7479 #43 > [76313.740650] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this > message. > [76313.743311] task:fsstress state:D stack:0 pid:1845687 tgid:1845687 > ppid:1845685 task_flags:0x400140 flags:0x00080000 > [76313.747137] Call Trace: > [76313.748000] > [76313.748830] __schedule+0xcc2/0x3c40 > [76313.750129] ? __pfx___schedule+0x10/0x10 > [76313.751479] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.753214] schedule+0x78/0x2e0 > [76313.754334] io_schedule+0x92/0x100 > [76313.755597] folio_wait_bit_common+0x26a/0x6f0 > [76313.757156] ? __pfx_folio_wait_bit_common+0x10/0x10 > [76313.758873] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.760508] ? xas_load+0x19/0x260 > [76313.761693] ? __pfx_wake_page_function+0x10/0x10 > [76313.763386] ? __pfx_filemap_get_entry+0x10/0x10 > [76313.764948] folio_wait_writeback+0x58/0x190 > [76313.766499] __filemap_get_folio_mpol+0x56d/0x800 > [76313.768085] ? kvm_read_and_reset_apf_flags+0x4a/0x70 > [76313.769899] iomap_write_begin+0xea7/0x1e90 > [76313.771304] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.773016] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30 > [76313.774427] ? __pfx_iomap_write_begin+0x10/0x10 > [76313.776100] ? fault_in_readable+0x80/0xe0 > [76313.777476] ? __pfx_fault_in_readable+0x10/0x10 > [76313.779106] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.780765] ? balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags+0x549/0xcb0 > [76313.782861] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.784457] ? fault_in_iov_iter_readable+0xe5/0x250 > [76313.786221] iomap_file_writethrough_write+0x9fd/0x1ce0 Looks like, while we were in iomap_writethrough_iter(), we ended up looping over the same folio twice w/o submitting the bio. So this could be a short copy case (written < bytes). I guess, if we have a short copy, then too we should submit the prepared bio in iomap_writethrough_iter(), otherwise we will deadlock when we iterate over the same folio twice. (because previously we changed the folio state to writeback) > [76313.787978] ? __pfx_iomap_file_writethrough_write+0x10/0x10 > [76313.789991] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.791589] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.793314] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.794932] ? current_time+0x73/0x2b0 > [76313.796132] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.797276] ? xfs_file_write_checks+0x420/0x900 [xfs] > [76313.798786] xfs_file_buffered_write+0x195/0xae0 [xfs] > [76313.800243] ? __pfx_xfs_file_buffered_write+0x10/0x10 [xfs] > [76313.801775] ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x40 > [76313.802843] ? kasan_save_free_info+0x3b/0x70 > [76313.803908] ? __kasan_slab_free+0x4f/0x80 > [76313.804894] ? vfs_fstatat+0x55/0xa0 > [76313.805835] ? __do_sys_newfstatat+0x7b/0xe0 > [76313.806899] ? do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x540 > [76313.807829] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 > [76313.809052] ? xfs_file_write_iter+0x22e/0xa80 [xfs] > [76313.810451] do_iter_readv_writev+0x453/0xa70 > > I have a feeling this has to do with the error handling as we are stuck waiting > for writeback to complete. It is not reproducible because it might be dependent > on the state of the system before this triggers. Let me see if I can find a way > to reliably reproduce this so that we have something to verify against once we > make these changes. > Maybe we can add a WARN_ON() too to detect and confirm that this only happens when we have a short copy case. We will give this a try too at our end. Also the error handling pointed by you and Ojaswin needs review & fixing in the next revision, to catch any remaining paths where we may end up like this. > -- > Pankaj Thanks Pankaj for giving this a try at your setup. -ritesh