Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ocfs2: split transactions in dio completion to avoid credit exhaustion

[Joseph Qi]

On 3/13/26 12:53 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/13/26 11:17 AM, Heming Zhao wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 10:04:11AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>> Almost looks fine, minor updates below.
>>>
>>> On 3/13/26 12:27 AM, Heming Zhao wrote:
>>>> During ocfs2 dio operations, JBD2 may report warnings via following call trace:
>>>> ocfs2_dio_end_io_write
>>>>  ocfs2_mark_extent_written
>>>>   ocfs2_change_extent_flag
>>>>    ocfs2_split_extent
>>>>     ocfs2_try_to_merge_extent
>>>>      ocfs2_extend_rotate_transaction
>>>>       ocfs2_extend_trans
>>>>        jbd2__journal_restart
>>>>         start_this_handle
>>>>          output: JBD2: kworker/6:2 wants too many credits credits:5450 rsv_credits:0 max:5449
>>>>
>>>> To prevent exceeding the credits limit, modify ocfs2_dio_end_io_write() to
>>>> handle each extent in a separate transaction.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, relocate ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan(). The orphan inode should
>>>> only be removed from the orphan list after the extent tree update is complete.
>>>> this ensures that if a crash occurs in the middle of extent tree updates, we
>>>> won't leave stale blocks beyond EOF.
>>>>
>>>> This patch also removes the only call to ocfs2_assure_trans_credits(), which
>>>> was introduced by commit be346c1a6eeb ("ocfs2: fix DIO failure due to
>>>> insufficient transaction credits").
>>>>
>>>> Finally, thanks to Jans for providing the bug fix prototype and suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/ocfs2/aops.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
>>>> index 09146b43d1f0..91997b330d39 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
>>>> @@ -2294,18 +2294,6 @@ static int ocfs2_dio_end_io_write(struct inode *inode,
>>>>  		goto out;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	/* Delete orphan before acquire i_rwsem. */
>>>> -	if (dwc->dw_orphaned) {
>>>> -		BUG_ON(dwc->dw_writer_pid != task_pid_nr(current));
>>>> -
>>>> -		end = end > i_size_read(inode) ? end : 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -		ret = ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan(osb, inode, di_bh,
>>>> -				!!end, end);
>>>> -		if (ret < 0)
>>>> -			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>>>>  	down_write(&oi->ip_alloc_sem);
>>>>  	di = (struct ocfs2_dinode *)di_bh->b_data;
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -2326,44 +2314,56 @@ static int ocfs2_dio_end_io_write(struct inode *inode,
>>>>  
>>>>  	credits = ocfs2_calc_extend_credits(inode->i_sb, &di->id2.i_list);
>>>>  
>>>> -	handle = ocfs2_start_trans(osb, credits);
>>>> -	if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
>>>> -		ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
>>>> -		mlog_errno(ret);
>>>> -		goto unlock;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -	ret = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle, INODE_CACHE(inode), di_bh,
>>>> -				      OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
>>>> -	if (ret) {
>>>> -		mlog_errno(ret);
>>>> -		goto commit;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>>>>  	list_for_each_entry(ue, &dwc->dw_zero_list, ue_node) {
>>>> -		ret = ocfs2_assure_trans_credits(handle, credits);
>>>> -		if (ret < 0) {
>>>> +		handle = ocfs2_start_trans(osb, credits);
>>>> +		if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
>>>> +			ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
>>>>  			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>  			break;
>>>
>>> I'd rather goto unlock directly without update i_size in case error.
>>
>> agree
>>>
>>>>  		}
>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle, INODE_CACHE(inode), di_bh,
>>>> +					      OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>> +			ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle);
>>>> +			break;
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> agree
>>>
>>>> +		}
>>>>  		ret = ocfs2_mark_extent_written(inode, &et, handle,
>>>>  						ue->ue_cpos, 1,
>>>>  						ue->ue_phys,
>>>>  						meta_ac, &dealloc);
>>>>  		if (ret < 0) {
>>>>  			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>> +			ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle);
>>>>  			break;
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> The existing code still updates i_size even if ocfs2_mark_extent_written()
>> returns an error. I am not certain whether updating i_size in this case is
>> correct, but I prefer to maintain the original logic for now.
>> Does that seem reasonable to you?
>>
> 
> Since it returns 0 for unwritten extents, it looks fine.
> 
Think it a bit more, I think it would be more acceptable to behave
consistent here.
e.g. succeeds in the first round and fails to start transaction in the
second, now it won't update i_size.

Joseph