Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 10:04 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 8:25 AM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >    [..] Several patches
> > touch files outside of our normal purview to set the stage for bringing
> > in Jeff's long awaited ceph+fscrypt series in the near future.  All of
> > them have appropriate acks and sat in linux-next for a while.
>
> What? No.
>
> I'm looking at the fs/dcache.c change, for example, and don't see the
> relevant maintainers having acked it at all.
>
> The mmdebug.h file similarly seems to not have the actual maintainer
> acks, and seems just plain stupid (why does it add that new folio
> warning macro, when the existing folio warning macro
> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO() is *better*?
>
> Those are some very core files, and while the changes seem harmless,
> they sure don't seem obviously ok.
>
> What's the point of warning about bogus folios more than once? That's
> a debug warning - if it hits even once, that's already "uhhuh,
> something is bad". Showing the warning more than once is likely just
> going to cause more problems, not give you more information.

Xiubo and Jeff used it to track down some issues between netfs library
and folio code that have been randomly plaguing our automated tests for
a couple of releases.  We already knew that there were issues in that
area and the actual occurrences mattered.  This was done in cooperation
with Willy and, since he was involved and this is a no-impact change,
I didn't think twice.

>
> And did somebody verify that d_same_name() is still inlined in the
> place that truly *matters*?  Because from my quick test, that patch
> broke it. Now __d_lookup() does a function call.
>
> And I _suspect_ it's all ok, because it turns out that
> __d_lookup_rcu() is the *really* hot case, and that one has inlined it
> all manually.
>
> But this kind of "we touch some *truly* core functionality, without
> the acks from the maintainers, and then we *claim* to have relevant
> acks" is really not even remotely ok.

I raised the lack of a formal Acked-by from Al on the dcache change
with Jeff a while ago and my understanding was that he reached out to
Al and got the ack (after some ghosting on Al's behalf).  I apologize
if I got that wrong -- all this happened in the middle of Jeff
transitioning his maintainership duties.

>
> I've pulled this because I suspect that d_same_name() thing is fine,
> and I think the VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO() addition is completely wrong but
> not horrendous.
>
> But you're on my tentative shit-list just for having claimed to have
> appropriate acks and having been found wanting.
>
> Just for your information: fs/dcache.c is some of the most optimized
> code in the kernel, and some of the subtlest. That RCU pathname lookup
> is serious business. You don't make changes to pathname lookup just
> willy nilly. There's a reason I start looking at individual patches
> when I see it in the diffstat.

Understood.

Thanks,

                Ilya