Re: [PATCH v2] writeback: bound cleanup_offline_cgwb() rescans by rotating scanned inodes

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 18:49:49 +0000 "Patrick Lu (Anthropic)" <perf.patrick.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> cleanup_offline_cgwb() prepares at most WB_MAX_INODES_PER_ISW inodes
> per call and is called again until the dying wb is drained, but every
> call walks wb->b_attached and then wb->b_dirty_time from the same end.
> Inodes already prepared (they stay on the list with I_WB_SWITCH set
> until the switch worker runs) and inodes that cannot be switched
> (I_FREEING, I_WILL_FREE, !SB_ACTIVE, DAX, already on the target wb)
> stay where they are, so each pass rescans a growing run of them under
> wb->list_lock and a full drain is quadratic in the number of inodes on
> the list. With ~17M inodes attached to one dying cgwb we saw this end
> in soft lockups, with CPUs reported stuck for 21-48s.

Well.  "quadratic" is a trigger word around here.  Even if it's O(n),
someone will hit it.  Thanks for working on this.

> Walk both lists from the oldest end and move every scanned inode to
> the newest end, so the next pass starts where the previous one stopped
> and the drain becomes linear. b_attached is unordered, so nobody sees
> the reorder there. b_dirty_time is ordered by dirtied_when, but the
> oldest unscanned inode stays at the end move_expired_inodes() picks
> from, sync takes the whole list regardless of order, and prepared
> inodes leave the list as soon as the switch work runs and get a new
> dirtied_time_when on the new wb anyway, so the only inodes left out of
> order are the ones that can never switch (DAX), and only on the dying
> wb.
> 
> Fixes: c22d70a162d3 ("writeback, cgroup: release dying cgwbs by switching attached inodes")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It sounds like this.  Maintainers, please lmk if you feel backporting is not
justified.  It's a five-year-old thing.

> ---
> Seen in production on a 6.18-based kernel: with ~17M inodes attached
> to one dying cgwb, a node spent 36 minutes in back-to-back
> wb->list_lock holds by the cleanup scanner (~6ms each, ~46% of wall
> time, starving writeback on that wb); with v1 of this patch the same
> workload drains in ~30 seconds. Also seen on stock Amazon Linux 2023
> 6.12.68 as isw workers spinning on the list_lock in
> inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() while cleanup_offline_cgwbs_workfn() runs.

This is super-important info and it deserves to be above the ---.  In
fact it deserves to become the first paragraph.