Re: [PATCH v4 02/28] mm: Add an unlock function for PG_private_2/PG_fscache

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

[ Adding btrfs people explicitly, maybe they see this on the fs-devel
list, but maybe they don't react .. ]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:07 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> This isn't a problem with this patch per se, but I'm concerned about
> private2 and expected page refcounts.

Ugh. You are very right.

It would be good to just change the rules - I get the feeling nobody
actually depended on them anyway because they were _so_ esoteric.

> static inline int is_page_cache_freeable(struct page *page)
> {
>         /*
>          * A freeable page cache page is referenced only by the caller
>          * that isolated the page, the page cache and optional buffer
>          * heads at page->private.
>          */
>         int page_cache_pins = thp_nr_pages(page);
>         return page_count(page) - page_has_private(page) == 1 + page_cache_pins;

You're right, that "page_has_private()" is really really nasty.

The comment is, I think, the traditional usage case, which used to be
about page->buffers. Obviously these days it is now about
page->private with PG_private set, pointing to buffers
(attach_page_private() and detach_page_private()).

But as you point out:

> #define PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE                              \
>         (1UL << PG_private | 1UL << PG_private_2)
>
> So ... a page with both flags cleared should have a refcount of N.
> A page with one or both flags set should have a refcount of N+1.

Could we just remove the PG_private_2 thing in this context entirely,
and make the rule be that

 (a) PG_private means that you have some local private data in
page->private, and that's all that matters for the "freeable" thing.

 (b) PG_private_2 does *not* have the same meaning, and has no bearing
on freeability (and only the refcount matters)

I _)think_ the btrfs behavior is to only use PagePrivate2() when it
has a reference to the page, so btrfs doesn't care?

I think fscache is already happy to take the page count when using
PG_private_2 for locking, exactly because I didn't want to have any
confusion about lifetimes. But this "page_has_private()" math ends up
meaning it's confusing anyway.

btrfs people? What are the semantics for PG_private_2? Is it just a
flag, and you really don't want it to have anything to do with any
page lifetime decisions? Or?

        Linus