Re: [PATCH RFC v2] btrfs: disable direct reads to avoid dirty folios without fs knowing

在 2026/7/23 20:08, Filipe Manana 写道:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 7:16 AM Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> There is a bug report that a reproducer which doing the following
>> workloads in two threads:
>>
>> - Direct read into memory mapped from page cache
>> - Sync the above range
>>
>> This can lead to dirty folios without fs knowing, this can be a huge
> 
> Can you please explain where, and why, the folio is dirtied?


btrfs_check_read_bio()
|- __iomap_dio_bio_end_io() from btrfs_bio_end_io()
    |- bio_check_pages_dirty()
       |- bio_dirty_fn()
          |- bio_release_pages(bio, true)
             |- __bio_release_pages(bio, mark_dirty == true)
                |- folio_mark_dirty()

At least this is the one from the reproducer.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> How does a direct IO read dirties a folio or a sync_file_range(2) call?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> problem for btrfs, as even on the very basic bs == ps cases without
>> large folios, such reproducer can screw up the ordered extent accounting
>> already:
>>
>>   ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>   WARNING: fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:390 at can_finish_ordered_extent.isra.0+0x56/0x1f0 [btrfs], CPU#1: kworker/u42:0/68
>>   CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 68 Comm: kworker/u42:0 Tainted: G            E       7.2.0-rc4-custom+ #415 PREEMPT(full)  74dbeafab12c410178747d5bec9fb200ae56949f
>>   Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS unknown 02/02/2022
>>   Workqueue: btrfs-endio simple_end_io_work [btrfs]
>>   RIP: 0010:can_finish_ordered_extent.isra.0+0x56/0x1f0 [btrfs]
>>   Call Trace:
>>    <TASK>
>>    btrfs_finish_ordered_extent+0x39/0xd0 [btrfs 7d1ffd99bb9696179883f257e5fd838e2d1a0ca3]
>>    end_bbio_data_write+0x1ff/0x280 [btrfs 7d1ffd99bb9696179883f257e5fd838e2d1a0ca3]
>>    btrfs_bio_end_io+0x76/0xf0 [btrfs 7d1ffd99bb9696179883f257e5fd838e2d1a0ca3]
>>    process_one_work+0x198/0x380
>>    worker_thread+0x1c8/0x330
>>    kthread+0xee/0x120
>>    ret_from_fork+0x28f/0x310
>>    ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
>>    </TASK>
>>   ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>   BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=5 ino=257 OE offset=3465216 OE len=2826240 to_dec=319488 left=135168
>>
>> Unfortunately we have removed cow fixup mechanism, which is to work
>> around such dirty folios by re-dirtying them and reserve space for them,
>> across several kernel releases, meaning we can not easily revert a
>> single commit to bring it back.
>> And without doubt, that old cow fixup mechanism is not support larger
>> folios.
>>
>> As a hot fix, disable btrfs direct reads for non-experimental builds for
>> now, so this can buy some time before we find out a proper way to address
>> this.
>>
>> Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Changelog:
>> v2:
>> - Fallback to buffered IO to avoid failing existing direct IO users
>>
>> - Allow direct writes
>>
>> Reason for RFC:
>> I'm not 100% sure if disabling direct IOs can fill all the holes.
>>
>> We still allow mmapping page cache into user spaces, thus I'm not sure
>> if this is the only hole.
>> ---
>>   fs/btrfs/direct-io.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/direct-io.c b/fs/btrfs/direct-io.c
>> index ed1779ccb4de..32b29a4faaf2 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/direct-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/direct-io.c
>> @@ -1093,6 +1093,11 @@ ssize_t btrfs_direct_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
>>          if (check_direct_read(inode_to_fs_info(inode), to, iocb->ki_pos))
>>                  return 0;
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_BTRFS_EXPERIMENTAL
>> +       /* To avoid dirty folios without fs knowing through */
>> +       return 0;
>> +#endif
>> +
>>          btrfs_inode_lock(BTRFS_I(inode), BTRFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
>>   again:
>>          /*
>> --
>> 2.54.0
>>
>>
>