[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YILcZpQh8T//6HLb@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:40:38 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] ext4: fix race between blkdev_releasepage()
and ext4_put_super()
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:11AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Yes, I understand that. What I was more asking about is: Does it really
> matter we leave those buffer heads and journal heads unreclaimed. I
> understand it could be triggering premature OOM in theory but is it a
> problem in practice? Was there some observed practical case for which this
> was added or was it just added due to the theoretical concern?
I was doing some research, and found the mail thread which inspired
bdev_try_to_free_page():
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20081202200647.72cc5807.toshi.okajima@jp.fujitsu.com/
>From what I can tell Toshi Okajima did have a test workload which
would trigger blkdev_releasepage(). He didn't specify it in the mail
thread as near as I can tell, but he did use it to test the page.
Thinking about it, it shouldn't be hard to trigger it via something like:
find /mnt -print0 | xargs -0 touch
in a memory contrained box with a large file system attached (a
bookshelf NAS scenario). Under the right circumstances, I'm pretty
sure a premature OOM could be demonstrated.
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists