Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:42:19 -0400
From:   Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>,
        Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
        minlei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: Fix the write_count in iomap_add_to_ioend().
Message-ID: <20200917104219.GA1811187@bfoster>
References: <20200822131312.GA17997@infradead.org>
 <20200824142823.GA295033@bfoster>
 <20200824150417.GA12258@infradead.org>
 <20200824154841.GB295033@bfoster>
 <20200825004203.GJ12131@dread.disaster.area>
 <20200825144917.GA321765@bfoster>
 <20200916001242.GE7955@magnolia>
 <20200916084510.GA30815@infradead.org>
 <20200916130714.GA1681377@bfoster>
 <20200917080455.GY26262@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200917080455.GY26262@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:04:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Dave described the main purpose earlier in this thread [1]. The initial
> > motivation is that we've had downstream reports of soft lockup problems
> > in writeback bio completion down in the bio -> bvec loop of
> > iomap_finish_ioend() that has to finish writeback on each individual
> > page of insanely large bios and/or chains. We've also had an upstream
> > reports of a similar problem on linux-xfs [2].
> > 
> > The magic number itself was just pulled out of a hat. I picked it
> > because it seemed conservative enough to still allow large contiguous
> > bios (1GB w/ 4k pages) while hopefully preventing I/O completion
> > problems, but was hoping for some feedback on that bit if the general
> > approach was acceptable. I was also waiting for some feedback on either
> > of the two users who reported the problem but I don't think I've heard
> > back on that yet...
> 
> I think the saner answer is to always run large completions in the
> workqueue, and add a bunch of cond_resched() calls, rather than
> arbitrarily breaking up the I/O size.
> 

That wouldn't address the latency concern Dave brought up. That said, I
have no issue with this as a targeted solution for the softlockup issue.
iomap_finish_ioend[s]() is common code for both the workqueue and
->bi_end_io() contexts so that would require either some kind of context
detection (and my understanding is in_atomic() is unreliable/frowned
upon) or a new "atomic" parameter through iomap_finish_ioend[s]() to
indicate whether it's safe to reschedule. Preference?

Brian