Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix XFS oops due to dirty pages without buffers on s390

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 
> > So, if I'm understanding right, with this change s390 would be in danger
> > of discarding shm, and mmap'ed tmpfs and ramfs pages - whereas pages
> > written with the write system call would already be PageDirty and secure.
> > 
> 
> In the case of ramfs, what marks the page clean so it could be discarded? It
> does not participate in dirty accounting so it's not going to clear the
> dirty flag in clear_page_dirty_for_io(). It doesn't have a writepage
> handler that would use an end_io handler to clear the page after "IO"
> completes. I am not seeing how a ramfs page can get discarded at the moment.

But we don't have a page clean bit: we have a page dirty bit, and where
is that set in the ramfs read-fault case?  I've not experimented to check,
maybe you're right and ramfs is exempt from the issue.  I thought it was
__do_fault() which does the set_page_dirty, but only if FAULT_FLAG_WRITE.
Ah, you quote almost the very place further down.

> 
> shm and tmpfs are indeed different and I did not take them into account
> (ba dum tisch) when reviewing. For those pages would it be sufficient to
> check the following?
> 
> PageSwapCache(page) || (page->mapping && !bdi_cap_account_dirty(page->mapping)

Something like that, yes: I've a possible patch I'll put in reply to Jan.

> 
> The problem the patch dealt with involved buffers associated with the page
> and that shouldn't be a problem for tmpfs, right?

Right, though I'm now beginning to wonder what the underlying bug is.
It seems to me that we have a bug and an optimization on our hands,
and have rushed into the optimization which would avoid the bug,
without considering what the actual bug is.  More in reply to Jan.

> I recognise that this
> might work just because of co-incidence and set off your "Yuck" detector
> and you'll prefer the proposed solution below.

No, I was mistaken to think that s390 would have dirty pages where
others had clean, Martin has now explained that SetPageUptodate cleans.
I didn't mind continuing an (imagined) inefficiency in s390, but I don't
want to make it more inefficient.

> 
> > You mention above that even the kernel writing to the page would mark
> > the s390 storage key dirty.  I think that means that these shm and
> > tmpfs and ramfs pages would all have dirty storage keys just from the
> > clear_highpage() used to prepare them originally, and so would have
> > been found dirty anyway by the existing code here in page_remove_rmap(),
> > even though other architectures would regard them as clean and removable.
> > 
> > If that's the case, then maybe we'd do better just to mark them dirty
> > when faulted in the s390 case.  Then your patch above should (I think)
> > be safe.  Though I'd then be VERY tempted to adjust the SwapCache case
> > too (I've not thought through exactly what that patch would be, just
> > one or two suitably placed SetPageDirtys, I think), and eliminate
> > page_test_and_clear_dirty() altogether - no tears shed by any of us!

So that fantasy was all wrong: appealing, but wrong.

> >  
> 
> Do you mean something like this?
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 5736170..c66166f 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -3316,7 +3316,20 @@ static int __do_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		} else {
>  			inc_mm_counter_fast(mm, MM_FILEPAGES);
>  			page_add_file_rmap(page);
> -			if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * s390 depends on the dirty flag from the storage key
> +			 * being propagated when the page is unmapped from the
> +			 * page tables. For dirty-accounted mapping, we instead
> +			 * depend on the page being marked dirty on writes and
> +			 * being write-protected on clear_page_dirty_for_io.
> +			 * The same protection does not apply for tmpfs pages
> +			 * that do not participate in dirty accounting so mark
> +			 * them dirty at fault time to avoid the data being
> +			 * lost
> +			 */
> +			if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE ||
> +			    !bdi_cap_account_dirty(page->mapping)) {
>  				dirty_page = page;
>  				get_page(dirty_page);
>  			}
> 
> Could something like this result in more writes to swap? Lets say there
> is an unmapped tmpfs file with data on it -- a process maps it, reads the
> entire mapping and exits. The page is now dirty and potentially will have
> to be rewritten to swap. That seems bad. Did I miss your point?

My point was that I mistakenly thought s390 must already be behaving
like that, so wanted it to continue that way, but with cleaner source.

But the CONFIG_S390 in SetPageUptodate makes sure that the zeroed page
starts out storage-key-clean: so you're exactly right, my suggestion
would result in more writes to swap for it, which is not acceptable.

(Plus, having insisted that ramfs is also affected, I went on
to forget that, and was imagining a simple change in mm/shmem.c.)

Hugh

> 
> > A separate worry came to mind as I thought about your patch: where
> > in page migration is s390's dirty storage key migrated from old page
> > to new?  And if there is a problem there, that too should be fixed
> > by what I propose in the previous paragraph.
> > 
> 
> hmm, very good question. It should have been checked in
> migrate_page_copy() where it could be done under the page lock before
> the PageDirty check. Martin?
> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>