From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C401E5B94; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:25:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744298755; cv=none; b=Q0NL2DNYjjhGMKoKqAl47DmYF9x4SWBOEcK5OovpwfZfwpYM3vbUbrb8b2G0+RwLRKW8CzZh1ac5Xl/rBo7QqIiVXXcByif6ovFf0IaXN2PODuUFUkLWGEdNnARs4TtDwohNoAmek3r59+4mzHYWylbUxZW9k+MMEbfnH6qoLX4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744298755; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XsL8pvigLhE5H8MAreEhkqAdgb3uoyx3yP4EbZnSggg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uWvAUwYU+NwS/cz/C68pm7QzF/45OkKEuL97hIPyuiSXsLFzB/tl/zWkdC3ElzSm8uzqWimmwF4IdwY8SqxQGU4KVsEeRGm+4SZMgzaz9aNoiYjUWLgmwAhuiT/juugmKDHEjIZ+8xWOeZNvEhDaylBy5DAeepkE7qidpIYDBmQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lrdCEDY7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lrdCEDY7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B0FAC4CEE8; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:25:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744298754; bh=XsL8pvigLhE5H8MAreEhkqAdgb3uoyx3yP4EbZnSggg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=lrdCEDY7+CZpSbOBEGAt0AExcytkp3ECH+gD02YWdvrDnmzs1zmaPC6fOh/pw3YWH e0/izyPYs4MXjAFTR5C1erFcuTwp4BBVC6MEEopEhg2/vEjyPYgqC4VOa4RdKGxqb7 CxuNvJsfwIgS2Mx5xrySgVjbObhV/j7cxFUuk5Mj2i5AT4jD9PC353YhRPSz454Kr5 cuEXqHCi1xIOhYFp40P+nVCO9fY1qsy+XEkRGwYs4yJhjfx/Yw2oo3tuit/VXIdpYe bUULl9yotm080Zwm2d/rwpXL+eNzunh3q7n0wnm1vz9kejX/63yax0ICj5NQdKfv1o 5IsdE3l3SUD0A== Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:25:54 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Matthew Wilcox , linux-block , linux-fsdevel , xfs Subject: Re: Weird blockdev crash in 6.15-rc1? Message-ID: <20250410152554.GP6307@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20250408175125.GL6266@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250409173015.GN6266@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250409190907.GO6266@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:40:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:09:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] block: fix race between set_blocksize and IO paths > > > > With the new large sector size support, it's now the case that > > set_blocksize needs to change i_blksize and the folio order with no > > folios in the pagecache because the geometry changes cause problems with > > the bufferhead code. > > Urrg. I wish we could just get out of the game of messing with > block device inode settings from file systems. I guess doing it when > using buffer_heads is hard, but file systems without buffer heads > should have a way out of even propagating their block size to the > block device inode. And file systems with buffer heads should probably > not support large folios like this :P Heh. Why does xfs still call set_blocksize, anyway? I can understand why we want to validate the fs sector size is a power of 2, greater than 512, and not smaller than the LBA size; and flushing the dirty bdev pagecache. But do we really need to fiddle with i_blksize or dumping the pagecache? --D