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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310F9C282EC for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1E977280002; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 171D6280001; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:37:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0139D280002; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BCC280001 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D436C12F8 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83234925522.28.CF8578F Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C308620012 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=dihRr+6G; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1742308659; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ffKIOlz0K/OUQ4231v8iUP6XKWsSo14s7agZ46aBcv0+mRwz1QHDght3w+Y+j+NaNy6Tye 4kkj4L8NQKpp9tTzZekihDYKDtGMj/CF3dW2qA6R+haOBYyWRPj0hZU9xXs5d9QiYPd3Zf sXmlFEaSTNkjBV/Lrme+63yDW7B7LBY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=dihRr+6G; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1742308659; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=krQ2w5oa/13hMp5s6oxgij/ARPZRgCl2Yz1Oc/B1BiM=; b=YdTjpQjcXxqgAGpd+dwoULNqJScDKVdcZprjijiBEsNee2L7tkBZWBoQWXHYtqMrXIKIO/ Lm/IKm0iAN0LrJgGEVi/feogKTcgt9mdastHr+gitoRfFgGzNmbjSE33/Y5MZvG+AuwYle 2tQ/zBLBw9a/UjgiLwJQ11/FPgOQikM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=krQ2w5oa/13hMp5s6oxgij/ARPZRgCl2Yz1Oc/B1BiM=; b=dihRr+6GFa0fYkK/zEqisXpphV w20Af9RuL7TboUER/FV/IdfJaZ8Uj32O0DPAyNTbB4t739KOQ/+19zOR8+4VGmdtcet6MD5QimEFd JSDK8NR44hOStMM/yG9EkSHFYcDnLx+9fIVLXRhDE6koD5km4iuWm+KfrO62Sl3Rh06exJHle/8UM jF+Y5e9bQsf5mhZRe7dBLfVzxvMWefg2wmljqR8u/SKW4zSqtMUOBFRdKbXVksD8rEl/K4e4Xppjg dPjgsG8Hk8CI6TLB08JsS/MuCq83CrPOlVTrubGWhRnJdVasRZrK/qu1jw3CYee+YesBmdCobz79K fPDqTaYw==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tuY4Q-0000000FLpE-0DTl; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:37:30 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:37:29 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Luis Chamberlain , Jan Kara Cc: Oliver Sang , David Hildenbrand , Alistair Popple , linux-mm@kvack.org, Christian Brauner , Hannes Reinecke , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, John Garry , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it, Pankaj Raghav , Daniel Gomez Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [block/bdev] 3c20917120: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/util.c Message-ID: References: <202503101536.27099c77-lkp@intel.com> <20250311-testphasen-behelfen-09b950bbecbf@brauner> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: 3potoxtta4p5cstfrjjokzgmfibj7kxr X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C308620012 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1742308658-524946 X-HE-Meta: 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 9Fgwi5m4 paTeWbcHk2+8BJ+vNpGaWoRVKPVOSHYrIo5Uxcw1lMRSghWajad0b9usInlGLxmqsdLFk5qoEx9LY4KZ0Gevn0sD4NxVPy1rlJITA0wc2AEqafQzNykv3eacnfYPBs7GLfSy3xSPQuJ2GOpxDMfx+0l/tM1GWn8j43zShfqW6EM7smkL7UxWpMDIJufv/L9H2MdqVfdlJMktjYaLiEaXl5iWm/rfz9iCTgmZOt4C4ZJ9+DpAgS7WZWxtR0wnjKYcRjlGbROf+krCJDZntVV9NYJh4l80DcpgWETVoffP0H00AElU= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 01:15:33AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > I also can't see how the patch ("("block/bdev: enable large folio > support for large logical block sizes") would trigger this. Easy enough to see by checking the backtrace. > [ 218.454517][ T51] folio_mc_copy+0xca/0x1f0 > [ 218.454532][ T51] __migrate_folio+0x11a/0x2d0 > [ 218.454541][ T51] __buffer_migrate_folio+0x558/0x660 folio_mc_copy() calls cond_resched() for large folios only. __buffer_migrate_folio() calls spin_lock(&mapping->i_private_lock) so for folios without buffer heads attached, we never take the spinlock, and for small folios we never call cond_resched(). It's only the compaction path for large folios with buffer_heads attached that calls cond_resched() while holding a spinlock. Jan was the one who extended the spinlock to be held over the copy in ebdf4de5642f so adding him for thoughts.