From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B978C433B4 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B40A6141F for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230363AbhENC1d (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2021 22:27:33 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:29444 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229701AbhENC1b (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2021 22:27:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14E2JNAL066139; Thu, 13 May 2021 22:26:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=WTVsqF7awjYZ58DmdJ7J4aaIOxt9YtpFgqys5M9YhwI=; b=CA+V1ZYoc58h5/c0spGXS7YbmZq0zkms+kZtZFS/fufGbyswe9ZwGkjOnCRPQj8icQ6A 5OzEcqIXgFX2+dDs6Iyct0jpjIcBKtJrHpR5JGkNjgtTuVXgl4s0zxwbMv+JTdgUBPFd f5nIhEC9WHVlgyQnHb3Zvij88N/DCH92+AirXnxmXFC44S7MFGlDTE9kj5jJzg+Mx/vp INNTmhPd5tqoga7tV7VzXMU1MwTAqYe+AdFtqgrm9KERSs9QAbDDtJbfZvozWgPLRL3n wInD3bUv+CS1imgum7QSig6anD3O/9XRL2Kyzbs6YW96CScfeQHBeQilwM+ufHHh0tey eg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38hgapr346-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 May 2021 22:26:15 -0400 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14E2K46n072265; Thu, 13 May 2021 22:26:15 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38hgapr33j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 May 2021 22:26:14 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14E2NPhI011504; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:13 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38hc6cr21x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:13 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 14E2QAEJ41222552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:10 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AF142049; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674FB42045; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.77.196.130]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 May 2021 02:26:10 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 07:56:09 +0530 From: riteshh To: Qu Wenruo Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch v2 00/42] btrfs: add data write support for subpage Message-ID: <20210514022609.lixjorvhu6mwsaoe@riteshh-domain> References: <20210427230349.369603-1-wqu@suse.com> <20210512221821.GB7604@twin.jikos.cz> <36e94393-d6cf-cc3d-d710-79c517de4ecc@gmx.com> <20210513225409.GL7604@twin.jikos.cz> <2b05bb47-f16c-62dd-d234-8bffdd332081@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2b05bb47-f16c-62dd-d234-8bffdd332081@gmx.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 63ibXWqF9CvlTLb7MhI2Cw_2lJnSFkbd X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: REPSwnjHSYahmeWtKEgKYPGTL-3ZpSWB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-14_01:2021-05-12,2021-05-14 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105140011 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 21/05/14 09:41AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2021/5/14 上午6:54, David Sterba wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:21:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > Do you think the patches 1-13 are safe to be merged independently? I've > > > > > paged through the whole patchset and some of the patches are obviously > > > > > preparatory stuff so they can go in without much risk. > > > > > > > > Yes. I believe they are OK for merge. > > > > > > > > I have run the full tests on x86 VM for the whole patchset, no new > > > > regression. > > > > > > > > Especially patch 03~05 would benefit 4K page size the most, thus merging > > > > them first would definitely help. > > > > > > > > Just let me to run the tests with patch 1~13 only, to see if there is > > > > any special dependency missing. > > > > > > Yep, patch 1~13 with the v5 read time repair patches are safe for x86. > > > > > > So they should be fine for the next merge window. > > > > > > > > > > I haven't looked at your git if there are updates from what was posted, > > > > > but I don't expect any significant changes, but what I saw looked ok to > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > I haven't touched those patches since v2 submission, thus there > > > > shouldn't be any modification to them. > > > > (At most some cosmetic change for the commit message/comments) > > > > > > > > > > If there are changes, please post 1-13 (ie. all the preparatory > > > > > patches), I'll put them to misc-next so you can focus on the rest. > > > > I did another pass and found a few unimportant style fixes, it's now > > pushed to branch ext/qu/subpage-prep-13. I'll run tests before merging > > it to misc-next, the cleanups are great, some changes scare me a bit > > though. Handling the ordered extents gets changed a bit, nothing > > obviously wrong but based on past experience there are some subtle bugs > > lurking. > > Yes, that's also what I'm a little concerned of. > > But with more understanding on ordered extent, it should be less a > concern, at least for x86. > > Currently the biggest change is in the new > btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(), it will do extra skip for range > without Ordered (Private2) bit. > > For x86 it shouldn't be a big problem as one page represents one sector, > and the only location we may get such call is for cases we don't need to > submit IO. > > Those cases are fully covered by fstests, according to my countless > crashes/failures during initial tests. > > Other than that, the btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() behavior should be > the same as old one, at least for x86. > > Although more tests are always helpful. If it helps, I tested "-g quick" on PPC64 with 64k config for 1-13 patches of this patch series and didn't find any regression/crash with xfstests. I am running "-g auto" now, will let you know the results once it completes. -ritesh > > Thanks, > Qu > > > > The plan is to add the branch to misc-next soon so we have enough time > > to test it. I'll reply to the individual patches with comments that > > stand out among the trivialities. > >