From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723C03806D0; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 08:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791188619; cv=none; b=cixgOUFwAnfcvYVlkoq1f5Shp9O5L8/NxnfzK7sZMVoXt2guVRC2XjEC3jC/CACjQLaojLGV5zL0I+siO9R+SDdBzSkCLtrjRoecbNSibVjZEmiCnEiGgfE2duejK9iqSqs6XldcS8ZgofTzdgYhozzUIPQDB3hapNHxNXyv6fI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791188619; c=relaxed/simple; bh=huvwHf6b6kpQy5qa5RyvFFPMRCNF22BZPSUsHgW1VMA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GMaEARzl+i0uHIkyjMGa53y7FQA/khMSbfdqzRhpAoF2Ql2X0usPkYsDSKYhW8kbWZAFHxRkXTso+MOAD0zeLowtRD9dphOLNvIWipTzUUtVKnohQr5cut6PPfaapBwL0qZHwq9VcGlH57ewhmmi6LZgz327iCHM+UdPiar6Syo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=YqNqHgSG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="YqNqHgSG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=z6VraAbnd2mT0BKdlhv+L+o2/2Wa3LZYIp6gFv/bUHI=; b=YqNqHgSGGmvFI3iveGjHa2tQ2L /jV3Ue8G5JbgDOIW+Gk4sFHwIF2YOp+16iyTnT9RAjDCE+Yqtx7kTfP0FJcXsNz2o8T05Vm9rVD+G 1psAI2EuqbDvwbuvfVYIESVhuvVi5w+VRMVb9Lamqgt1kIxqVmFPYRAcWxWE0cH0khMrZlahHqj8/ EEnFIEoASG2pNz5gA6XfR3c0TlJyU5I8OhDTddikXAVOMQwcysbo+fJvWSO2venfdD18/pjs8wOOl q5o7G+o3NxhQbKCXPhbFIZygzSFInSBjkGaRHlVZFrAscdKwbjawO+gzny9tYUcY7koj9JTMvZh+V jC0O0gKQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xDdyk-0000000FsEH-47BZ; Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:23:23 +0000 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 01:23:22 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Alexandre Ghiti Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alexandre Ghiti , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , david@kernel.org, Johannes Weiner , Yosry Ahmed , Nhat Pham , Chengming Zhou , Jens Axboe , Tejun Heo , Josef Bacik , Chris Li , Kairui Song , Kemeng Shi , Baoquan He , Barry Song , Youngjun Park Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] block: do not issue background swap bios as root Message-ID: References: <20260928081900.4187482-1-alex@ghiti.fr> <20260928081900.4187482-2-alex@ghiti.fr> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 11:16:03AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > > > > > > Such a bio cannot simply drop REQ_SWAP: dm-crypt and dm-thin rely on it > > > for limit_swap_bios, which caps in-flight swap bios to avoid a memory > > > deadlock, see commit a666e5c05e7c ("dm: fix deadlock when swapping to > > > encrypted device"). > > > > Is that true? REQ_BACKGROUND very much implies the I/O can the throttled > > and thus better not be foreground paging, and thus the caller should be > > able to tolerate a failure. > > > > Yes, I agree, zswap writebacks are only best effort and in case of > failure, the compressed entry still lives. I don't see how > REQ_BACKGROUND could be an issue there? The issue is that by definition it doesn't need REQ_SWAP then. Then again the whole concept of REQ_SWAP looks sketchy to me, non-swap paging can be just as important for forward progress, so if a driver needs it, it has other issues anyway.