Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] iomap: use BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK for dropbehind writeback

[Tal Zussman]

On 7/30/26 4:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 02:57:53AM -0400, Tal Zussman wrote:
>> Set BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK on iomap writeback bios when a dropbehind folio
>> is added. This ensures that bi_end_io runs in task context, where
>> folio_end_dropbehind() can safely invalidate folios.
>> 
>> With the bio layer now handling task-context deferral generically,
>> IOMAP_IOEND_DONTCACHE is no longer needed, as XFS no longer needs to
>> route DONTCACHE ioends through its completion workqueue. Remove the flag
>> and its NOMERGE entry.
>> 
>> Without the NOMERGE, regular I/Os that get merged with a dropbehind
>> folio will also have their completion deferred to task context.
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Tal Zussman <tz2294@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This seems to be missing the bug fix you identified for the double
> deferral?

Sorry, I misunderstood and assumed you'd take care of it in a follow-up.
I'll adjust it as below and send v8.

> I although thought a bit how that could be done cleaner, see below:
> 
>>  		ioend_flags |= IOMAP_IOEND_SHARED;
>> -	if (folio_test_dropbehind(folio))
>> -		ioend_flags |= IOMAP_IOEND_DONTCACHE;
> 
> I'd keep this flag.
> 
>>  	if (pos == wpc->iomap.offset && (wpc->iomap.flags & IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY))
>>  		ioend_flags |= IOMAP_IOEND_BOUNDARY;
>>  
>> @@ -256,6 +254,9 @@ ssize_t iomap_add_to_ioend(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, struct folio *folio,
>>  	if (!bio_add_folio(&ioend->io_bio, folio, map_len, poff))
>>  		goto new_ioend;
>>  
>> +	if (folio_test_dropbehind(folio))
>> +		bio_set_flag(&ioend->io_bio, BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK);
> 
> And move setting the flag to iomap_ioend_writeback_submit, and only
> for the case where no io_bio.bi_end_io is already assigned.
> 

To confirm, this would only work because XFS provides its own task context
and is the only consumer of iomap that sets its own io_bio.bi_end_io.
If another filesystem set it and didn't provide task context, this would
break, right? I can add a comment about this requirement, but I want to
confirm the intent, as it feels a little fragile as-is.