Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: bio_alloc should never fail
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
CC:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
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-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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
> .
>