On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:33:05PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:48:42AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Here's v3 of the fiemap delalloc support patches for bcachefs. The main > > difference from v2 is that the pagecache seek calls are now using > > nonblocking mode to avoid deadlocks between fiemap and the write path. > > The write path locks in folio -> extent btree order while fiemap walks > > the extent btree and scans for folios in transaction context. Therefore, > > the latter must restart the iterating transaction in the event of folio > > trylock failure and restart the scan from where it left off. > > > > The series is pushed to CI via my test branch, as usual: > > > > https://evilpiepirate.org/~testdashboard/ci?branch=bfoster > > So our testing is currently busted because of a bug in 9pfs - I need you > to rebase onto my 9p-revert branch so we can get test results we can > look at: > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/log/?h=9p-revert >
Huh, Ok. I also noticed an issue recently related to some sysfs directory structure changes. That required me to rebase on bcachefs-testing, though it appears that has since been resolved in master (and 9p-revert). I just rebased my test branch on 9p-revert and pushed. What failures are being caused by 9p, anyways? > Eric, is this getting fixed? If it's not, and _soon_, we need to send > this revert to Linus - then put it through more testing, more asserts, > whatever you need and send it again next cycle, _after_ you've figured > out what wwent wrong. > > Patch series looks good, though - if there's nothing you think needs > special attention I'll go ahead and merge it. > Not really, mainly just making sure the new locking and transaction restart parts looked sane. > I wonder if at some point we could clean up the indirect extent lookup, > that's common between this code and the read paths, but that's low > priority. > I'll make a note to read more into that area. Thanks. Brian
