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:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:44:52 +0200
From:   Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
To:     Ingo Franzki <ifranzki@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Juergen Christ <jchrist@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: loop_set_block_size: loop0 () has still dirty pages (nrpages=2)
Message-ID: <20210616074452.viprot2qh3y7anct@ws.net.home>
References: <8bed44f2-273c-856e-0018-69f127ea4258@linux.ibm.com>
 <YMIliuPi2tTLUJxv@T590>
 <cf3c803f-350e-c365-afac-0a07a9b6cee2@linux.ibm.com>
 <20210615084259.yj5pmyjonfqcg7lg@ws.net.home>
 <72939177-a284-b5b6-e75e-2de9ab989bb4@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <72939177-a284-b5b6-e75e-2de9ab989bb4@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:22:17AM +0200, Ingo Franzki wrote:
> On 15.06.2021 10:42, Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:35:30AM +0200, Ingo Franzki wrote:
> >> However, shouldn't then the losetup userspace utility implement some kind of retry logic in case of -EAGAIN ?
> >> I don't see that in the source of losetup.c nor in loopdev.c in the util-linux package. There is a retry loop in create_loop() in losetup.c retrying loopcxt_setup_device() in case of EBUSY, but not in case of EAGAIN.
> >>
> >> And losetup also hides the original error code and just returns EXIT_FAILURE in case of a failure. So no real good chance for the script that uses losetup to catch that error situation and perform a retry itself.
> >>
> >> Adding Karel Zak (the maintainer of util-linux).
> >>
> >> @Karel Zak: How about adding EAGAIN to the condition for performing a retry? 
> >>
> >> Something like this:
> >>
> >> -		if (errno == EBUSY && !hasdev && ntries < 64) {
> >> +		if ((errno == EBUSY || errno == EAGAIN) && !hasdev && ntries < 64) {
> >> 			xusleep(200000);
> >> 			ntries++;
> >> 			continue;
> >> 		}
> >  
> > EAGAIN sounds like the best reason to try it again :-) 
> > 
> > Committed, it will be also available in v2.37.1.
> 
> Thanks a lot for the quick resolution!
> 
> Do you by any chance know if Fedora 34 will be updated with v2.37.1? 

I'd like to keep f34 based on v2.36.2, but I can backport the patch to f34.

 Karel


-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com