On 10/10/22 7:10 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/11/22 01:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [...]
>> I note that there are changes to the the io_uring IO path and write
>> IO end accounting in the io_uring stack that was merged, and there
>> was no doubt about the success/failure of the reproducer at each
>> step. Hence I think the bisect is good, and the problem is someone
>> in the io-uring changes.
>>
>> Jens, over to you.
>>
>> The reproducer - generic/068 - is 100% reliable here, io_uring is
>> being exercised by fsstress in the background whilst the filesystem
>> is being frozen and thawed repeatedly. Some path in the io-uring
>> code has an unbalanced sb_start_write()/sb_end_write() pair by the
>> look of it....
>
> A quick guess, it's probably
>
> b000145e99078 ("io_uring/rw: defer fsnotify calls to task context")
>
> From a quick look, it removes kiocb_end_write() -> sb_end_write()
> from kiocb_done(), which is a kind of buffered rw completion path.
Yeah, I'll take a look.
Didn't get the original email, only Pavel's reply?
--
Jens Axboe
