From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
syzbot <syzbot+3622cea378100f45d59f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:LINE!
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:53:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whYO5v09E8oHoYQDn7qqV0hBu713AjF+zxJ9DCr1+WOtQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2011231928140.4305@eggly.anvils>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:07 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
>
> Then on crashing a second time, realized there's a stronger reason against
> that approach. If my testing just occasionally crashes on that check,
> when the page is reused for part of a compound page, wouldn't it be much
> more common for the page to get reused as an order-0 page before reaching
> wake_up_page()? And on rare occasions, might that reused page already be
> marked PageWriteback by its new user, and already be waited upon? What
> would that look like?
>
> It would look like BUG_ON(PageWriteback) after wait_on_page_writeback()
> in write_cache_pages() (though I have never seen that crash myself).
So looking more at the patch, I started looking at this part:
> + writeback = TestClearPageWriteback(page);
> + /* No need for smp_mb__after_atomic() after TestClear */
> + waiters = PageWaiters(page);
> + if (waiters) {
> + /*
> + * Writeback doesn't hold a page reference on its own, relying
> + * on truncation to wait for the clearing of PG_writeback.
> + * We could safely wake_up_page_bit(page, PG_writeback) here,
> + * while holding i_pages lock: but that would be a poor choice
> + * if the page is on a long hash chain; so instead choose to
> + * get_page+put_page - though atomics will add some overhead.
> + */
> + get_page(page);
> + }
and thinking more about this, my first reaction was "but that has the
same race, just a smaller window".
And then reading the comment more, I realize you relied on the i_pages
lock, and that this odd ordering was to avoid the possible latency.
But what about the non-mapping case? I'm not sure how that happens,
but this does seem very fragile.
I'm wondering why you didn't want to just do the get_page()
unconditionally and early. Is avoiding the refcount really such a big
optimization?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-24 5:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <000000000000d3a33205add2f7b2@google.com>
2020-08-28 10:07 ` Jan Kara
2020-08-31 10:03 ` Jan Kara
2020-08-31 18:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-24 4:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-11-24 4:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-24 4:53 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-11-24 6:34 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-11-24 16:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-11-24 12:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-24 16:28 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-11-24 18:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-24 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-24 20:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-24 20:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-24 21:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-11-24 23:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-25 21:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-25 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-25 9:20 ` Jan Kara
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='CAHk-=whYO5v09E8oHoYQDn7qqV0hBu713AjF+zxJ9DCr1+WOtQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=syzbot+3622cea378100f45d59f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=william.kucharski@oracle.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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