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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 5E783CA9EC3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A9C2083E; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="GmTQGCkI"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="MdvaY3nG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 29A9C2083E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQ4Mg-0004zD-BA; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:55:26 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQ4Mf-0004z5-0B for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:55:25 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=d85h5ohyAnWc1bxo0CSEX0+GkiWhrQIhl4Egr6AIiMw=; b=GmTQGCkIXx0mqqp7CiXo0Oejb/ XuxwBgT6dxJbQWY4HSX7fkfVDGpPfFnuB4Vac6h4r7hfNQDbY3cLSWd9X+nIxNGFSOv9UGYJLHQxw hGSZ8wfG/W8d3ztEhr+ToI2TUa5950u9vIajee+DAIoU+YNhzCT+f8sXOL678kWs7pRs=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=d85h5ohyAnWc1bxo0CSEX0+GkiWhrQIhl4Egr6AIiMw=; b=MdvaY3nG5l/QSIdpEd6jNtFJRU que/sAU/sl7OhlWIzc3cqd0Pl1CFBGz7TOdb/sAznK9SsvYJJaqz8DKiOXVGBNJtC/6rVKsyiYZQA X5Ox8DutIjgGHVb6CBYqr2cMn98U4ncdQL5xjIs1i/SNFLQtce0p2+3mlF60+BhCmrzg=; Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-3.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1iQ4Ma-00C1sW-R6 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 06:55:24 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS402-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E01DC2C04A56620C2F94; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:55:12 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:55:07 +0800 To: Jaegeuk Kim , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" References: <20191030035518.65477-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20aa40bd-280d-d223-9f73-d9ed7dbe4f29@huawei.com> <20191030091542.GA24976@architecture4> <19a417e6-8f0e-564e-bc36-59bfc883ec16@huawei.com> <20191030104345.GB170703@architecture4> <20191030151444.GC16197@mit.edu> <20191030155020.GA3953@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1> <20191030162243.GA18729@mit.edu> <20191030163313.GB34056@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <0ef44e01-13a6-2519-bce2-075ca14a0cb9@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:55:06 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191030163313.GB34056@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1iQ4Ma-00C1sW-R6 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: bio_alloc should never fail X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Gao Xiang , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 2019/10/31 0:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 10/30, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:50:37PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> >>> So I'm curious about the original issue in commit 740432f83560 >>> ("f2fs: handle failed bio allocation"). Since f2fs manages multiple write >>> bios with its internal fio but it seems the commit is not helpful to >>> resolve potential mempool deadlock (I'm confused since no calltrace, >>> maybe I'm wrong)... >> >> Two possibilities come to mind. (a) It may be that on older kernels >> (when f2fs is backported to older Board Support Package kernels from >> the SOC vendors) didn't have the bio_alloc() guarantee, so it was >> necessary on older kernels, but not on upstream, or (b) it wasn't >> *actually* possible for bio_alloc() to fail and someone added the >> error handling in 740432f83560 out of paranoia. > > Yup, I was checking old device kernels but just stopped digging it out. > Instead, I hesitate to apply this patch since I can't get why we need to > get rid of this code for clean-up purpose. This may be able to bring > some hassles when backporting to android/device kernels. Jaegeuk, IIUC, as getting hint from commit 740432f83560, are we trying to fix potential deadlock like this? In low memory scenario: - f2fs_write_checkpoint() - block_operations() - f2fs_sync_node_pages() step 1) flush cold nodes, allocate new bio from mempool - bio_alloc() - mempool_alloc() step 2) flush hot nodes, allocate a bio from mempool - bio_alloc() - mempool_alloc() step 3) flush warm nodes, be stuck in below call path - bio_alloc() - mempool_alloc() - loop to wait mempool element release, as we only reserved memory for two bio allocation, however above allocated two bios never getting submitted. #define BIO_POOL_SIZE 2 If so, we need avoid using bioset, or introducing private bioset, at least enlarging mempool size to three (adapt to total log headers' number)... Thanks, > >> >> (Hence my suggestion that in the ext4 version of the patch, we add a >> code comment justifying why there was no error checking, to make it >> clear that this was a deliberate choice. :-) >> >> - Ted > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel