mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Diangang Li" <lidiangang@bytedance.com>
To: "Zhang Yi" <yizhang089@gmail.com>,
	"Andreas Dilger" <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	 "Diangang Li" <diangangli@gmail.com>
Cc: <tytso@mit.edu>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	 <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 <changfengnan@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] ext4: fail fast on repeated metadata reads after IO failure
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:42:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aa1f5bb1-ffa0-4c85-a228-730593bd4ed0@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5c657e6-ffbd-4327-adaf-ae52cb50b96d@gmail.com>

Hi, Yi,

Thanks. Yes, for existing metadata blocks ext4 is read-modify-write, so 
without a successful read (Uptodate) there is no write path to update 
that block.

In the case we're seeing, the read keeps failing (repeated I/O errors on 
the same LBA), so the write never has a chance to run either. Given 
that, would it make sense (as Fengnan suggested) to treat persistent 
media errors (e.g. MEDIUM ERROR / IO ERROR) as non-retryable at the 
filesystem level, i.e. keep failing fast for that block? That would 
avoid the BH_Lock thundering herd and prevent hung tasks.

Thanks,
Diangang

On 3/25/26 10:27 PM, Zhang Yi wrote:
> Hi, Diangang,
> 
> On 3/25/2026 7:13 PM, Diangang Li wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> BH_Read_EIO is cleared on successful read or write.
> 
> I think what Andreas means is, since you modified the ext4_read_bh() 
> interface, if the bh to be read already has the Read_EIO flag set, then 
> subsequent read operations through this interface will directly return 
> failure without issuing a read I/O. At the same time, because its state 
> is also not uptodate, for an existing block, a write request will not be 
> issued either. How can we clear this Read_EIO flag? IIRC, relying solely 
> on ext4_read_bh_nowait() doesn't seem sufficient to achieve this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yi.
> 
>>
>> In practice bad blocks are typically repaired/remapped on write, so we
>> expect recovery after a successful rewrite. If the block is never
>> rewritten, repeatedly issuing the same failing read does not help.
>>
>> We clear the flag on successful reads so the buffer can recover
>> immediately if the error was transient. Since read-ahead reads are not
>> blocked, a later successful read-ahead will clear the flag and allow
>> subsequent synchronous readers to proceed normally.
>>
>> Best,
>> Diangang
>>
>> On 3/25/26 6:15 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2026, at 03:33, Diangang Li <diangangli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Diangang Li <lidiangang@bytedance.com>
>>>>
>>>> ext4 metadata reads serialize on BH_Lock (lock_buffer). If the read 
>>>> fails,
>>>> the buffer remains !Uptodate. With concurrent callers, each waiter can
>>>> retry the same failing read after the previous holder drops BH_Lock. 
>>>> This
>>>> amplifies device retry latency and may trigger hung tasks.
>>>>
>>>> In the normal read path the block driver already performs its own 
>>>> retries.
>>>> Once the retries keep failing, re-submitting the same metadata read 
>>>> from
>>>> the filesystem just amplifies the latency by serializing waiters on
>>>> BH_Lock.
>>>>
>>>> Remember read failures on buffer_head and fail fast for ext4 
>>>> metadata reads
>>>> once a buffer has already failed to read. Clear the flag on successful
>>>> read/write completion so the buffer can recover. ext4 read-ahead uses
>>>> ext4_read_bh_nowait(), so it does not set the failure flag and remains
>>>> best-effort.
>>>
>>> Not that the patch is bad, but if the BH_Read_EIO flag is set on a 
>>> buffer
>>> and it prevents other tasks from reading that block again, how would the
>>> buffer ever become Uptodate to clear the flag?  There isn't enough state
>>> in a 1-bit flag to have any kind of expiry and later retry.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Andreas
>>
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-26  7:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-25  9:33 [RFC PATCH 0/1] " Diangang Li
2026-03-25  9:33 ` [RFC 1/1] " Diangang Li
2026-03-25 10:15   ` Andreas Dilger
2026-03-25 11:13     ` Diangang Li
2026-03-25 14:27       ` Zhang Yi
2026-03-26  2:26         ` changfengnan
2026-03-26  7:42         ` Diangang Li [this message]
2026-03-26 11:09           ` Zhang Yi
2026-03-25 15:06     ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-03-26 12:09       ` Diangang Li
2026-04-13  6:24 ` [RFC v2 0/1] ext4: fail fast on repeated buffer_head " Diangang Li
2026-04-13  6:25   ` [RFC v2 1/1] " Diangang Li
2026-04-13 12:47   ` [RFC v2 0/1] " Theodore Tso
2026-04-16  3:54     ` Diangang Li

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aa1f5bb1-ffa0-4c85-a228-730593bd4ed0@bytedance.com \
    --to=lidiangang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=changfengnan@bytedance.com \
    --cc=diangangli@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=yizhang089@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®