On Tue 16-05-17 17:24:21, Jens Axboe wrote:

On May 16, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Rakesh Pandit [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:48:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Mon 15-05-17 23:34:00, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Hi Jan, Miklos,

quoted

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:24:40PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
Allocate struct backing_dev_info separately instead of embedding it
inside the superblock. This unifies handling of bdi among users.

....

quoted

quoted

...

quoted

static int fuse_bdi_init(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct super_block *sb)
{
   int err;
+    char *suffix = "";

-    fc->bdi.name = "fuse";
-    fc->bdi.ra_pages = (VM_MAX_READAHEAD * 1024) / PAGE_SIZE;
-    /* fuse does it's own writeback accounting */
-    fc->bdi.capabilities = BDI_CAP_NO_ACCT_WB | BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT;
-
-    err = bdi_init(&fc->bdi);
+    if (sb->s_bdev)
+        suffix = "-fuseblk";
+    err = super_setup_bdi_name(sb, "%u:%u%s", MAJOR(fc->dev),
+                   MINOR(fc->dev), suffix);
   if (err)
       return err;

This call to super_setup_bdi_name would only work with "fuse" but not
with "fuseblk" as mounting a block device in userspace triggers
mount_bdev call which results in set_bdev_super taking a reference
from block device's BDI.  But super_setup_bdi_name allocates a new bdi
and ignores the already existing reference which triggers:

WARN_ON(sb->s_bdi != &noop_backing_dev_info);

as sb->s_bdi already has a reference from set_bdev_super.  This works
for "fuse" (without a blocking device) for obvious reasons.  I can
reproduce this on -rc1 and also found a report on lkml:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/2/445

Only sane solution seems to be maintaining a private bdi instace just
for fuseblk and let fuse use the common new infrastructure.

Thanks for analysis! Does the attached patch fix the warning for you?

Yes, tested. Feel free to add:
Tested-by: Rakesh Pandit <redacted>

Jan, want me to add it with the tested-by?

Yes, please. Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR