linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
To: zhangjun <openzhangj@gmail.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, <hch@lst.de>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ubifs: fix page_count in ->ubifs_migrate_page()
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:12:47 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <583fba27-cbd7-1f90-8bf0-a3b49e75b0f6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e477c69a-082b-586b-a45a-50dee2b530ca@gmail.com>

Hi,

On 2018/12/14 14:15, zhangjun wrote:
> On 2018/12/14 上午6:57, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:23:37PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Hello zhangjun,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for bringing this up!
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018, 15:13:57 CET schrieb zhangjun:
>>>> Because the PagePrivate() in UBIFS is different meanings,
>>>> alloc_cma() will fail when one dirty page cache located in
>>>> the type of MIGRATE_CMA
>>>>
>>>> If not adjust the 'extra_count' for dirty page,
>>>> ubifs_migrate_page() -> migrate_page_move_mapping() will
>>>> always return -EAGAIN for:
>>>>     expected_count += page_has_private(page)
>>>> This causes the migration to fail until the page cache is cleaned
>>>>
>>>> In general, PagePrivate() indicates that buff_head is already bound
>>>> to this page, and at the same time page_count() will also increase.
>>
>> That's an invalid assumption.
>>
>> We should not be trying to infer what PagePrivate() means in code
>> that has no business using looking at it i.e. page->private is private
>> information for the owner of the page, and it's life cycle and
>> intent are unknown to anyone other than the page owner.
>>
>> e.g. on XFS, a page cache page's page->private /might/ contain a
>> struct iomap_page, or it might be NULL. Assigning a struct
>> iomap_page to the page does not change the reference count on the
>> page.  IOWs, the page needs to be handled exactly the same
>> way by external code regardless of whether there is somethign
>> attached to page->private or not.
>>
>> Hence it looks to me like the migration code is making invalid
>> assumptions about PagePrivate inferring reference counts and so the
>> migration code needs to be fixed. Requiring filesystems to work
>> around invalid assumptions in the migration code is a sure recipe
>> for problems with random filesystems using page->private for their
>> own internal purposes....
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave.
> I agree with your main point of view, but for the buffer_head based file system this assumption is no problem,
> and the parameters and comments from the migrate_page_move_mapping() function:
>   * 3 for pages with a mapping and PagePrivate/PagePrivate2 set.
> This assumption has been explained.
> Or to accurately say that the migrate system does not currently have a generic function for this case.
> Since you call the function implemented for buffer_head, you should follow its rules.
> 

This restriction also exists in the reclaim code. If PagePrivate is set, this page should be with an extra reference (==3) to be freeable
at the moment.

 571 static inline int is_page_cache_freeable(struct page *page)
 572 {
 573         /*
 574          * A freeable page cache page is referenced only by the caller
 575          * that isolated the page, the page cache radix tree and
 576          * optional buffer heads at page->private.
 577          */
 578         return page_count(page) - page_has_private(page) == 2;
 579 }

And I personally think this restriction is good for race-free code (at least erofs doesn't use buffer_head, but it also follows
the rule to avoid race because an extra pointer to the PagePrivate page) since it indicates that some pointer also points to the page
but the page can be freeable at the moment, an extra reference is preferred to keep the relationship.

I think it is what PagePrivate implys (some other pointer to the page) but not the page->private. Those are two slightly different fields...

My personal thought...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang


      reply	other threads:[~2018-12-14  9:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-12 14:13 zhangjun
2018-12-13 14:23 ` Richard Weinberger
2018-12-13 15:14   ` zhangjun
2018-12-13 22:57   ` Dave Chinner
2018-12-14  6:15     ` zhangjun
2018-12-14  9:12       ` Gao Xiang [this message]

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=583fba27-cbd7-1f90-8bf0-a3b49e75b0f6@huawei.com \
    --to=gaoxiang25@huawei.com \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=openzhangj@gmail.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --subject='Re: ubifs: fix page_count in ->ubifs_migrate_page()' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).