Re: [QUESTION] BUG_ON in ext4_mb_simple_scan_group

[Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>]

>>
>>> If above is true, then may be we should not call
>>> "SetPageUptodate(page)", in case of an error reading block bitmap?
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>> Yeah, it's better to set page uptodate only if all block bitmap buffers
>> are uptodate represent by this page.
> 
> 
> So I guess the *easier* thing to do here is to abort the loop which
> calls ext4_wait_block_bitmap() in ext4_mb_init_cache, similar to how
> the loop above it does (which calls for ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait())
> 
> Since if any of the block bitmap buffer (which belongs to that page)
> could not be read properly, then we should not set the PageUptodate.
> (including for blocksize < pagesize where groups_per_page > 1) and
> no need of even setting up the in memory buddy and bitmap information
> (since we are anyway not going to use it).
> 
> Others can comment, if something else needs to be done?
> But I think over optimizing this logic for blocksize < pagesize
> may become an overkill? (since this mostly happens during an I/O error).
> 

Ok, so as I see this bug was possibly introduced to handle blocksize < 
pagesize case itself [1]. So it will make no sense to just optimize it
for blocksize == pagesize again. So I guess we should look into this
more closely rather then simply implementing above logic.

[1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg48111.html

So, I can get back to this some time later maybe.

-ritesh