[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090324033204.64f3da9d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:32:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, guichaz@...il.com,
Alex Khesin <alexk@...gle.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: ftruncate-mmap: pages are lost after writing to mmaped file.
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:44:21 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> On Friday 20 March 2009 03:46:39 Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 20-03-09 02:48:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > Holding mapping->private_lock over the __set_page_dirty should
> > > fix it, although I guess you'd want to release it before calling
> > > __mark_inode_dirty so as not to put inode_lock under there. I
> > > have a patch for this if it sounds reasonable.
> >
> > Yes, that seems to be a bug - the function actually looked suspitious to
> > me yesterday but I somehow convinced myself that it's fine. Probably
> > because fsx-linux is single-threaded.
>
>
> After a whole lot of chasing my own tail in the VM and buffer layers,
> I think it is a problem in ext2 (and I haven't been able to reproduce
> with ext3 yet, which might lend weight to that, although as we have
> seen, it is very timing dependent).
>
> That would be slightly unfortunate because we still have Jan's ext3
> problem, and also another reported problem of corruption on ext3 (on
> brd driver).
>
> Anyway, when I have reproduced the problem with the test case, the
> "lost" writes are all reported to be holes. Unfortunately, that doesn't
> point straight to the filesystem, because ext2 allocates blocks in this
> case at writeout time, so if dirty bits are getting lost, then it would
> be normal to see holes.
>
> I then put in a whole lot of extra infrastructure to track metadata about
> each struct page (when it was last written out, when it last had the number
> of writable ptes reach 0, when the dirty bits were last cleared etc). And
> none of the normal asertions were triggering: eg. when any page is removed
> from pagecache (except truncates), it has always had all its buffers
> written out *after* all ptes were made readonly or unmapped. Lots of other
> tests and crap like that.
>
> So I tried what I should have done to start with and did an e2fsck after
> seeing corruption. Yes, it comes up with errors.
Do you recall what the errors were?
> Now that is unusual
> because that should be largely insulated from the vm: if a dirty bit gets
> lost, then the filesystem image should be quite happy and error-free with
> a hole or unwritten data there.
>
> I don't know ext? locking very well, except that it looks pretty overly
> complex and crufty.
>
> Usually, blocks are instantiated by write(2), under i_mutex, serialising
> the allocator somewhat. mmap-write blocks are instantiated at writeout
> time, unserialised. I moved truncate_mutex to cover the entire get_blocks
> function, and can no longer trigger the problem. Might be a timing issue
> though -- Ying, can you try this and see if you can still reproduce?
>
> I close my eyes and pick something out of a hat. a686cd89. Search for XXX.
> Nice. Whether or not this cased the problem, can someone please tell me
> why it got merged in that state?
>
> I'm leaving ext3 running for now. It looks like a nasty task to bisect
> ext2 down to that commit :( and I would be more interested in trying to
> reproduce Jan's ext3 problem, however, because I'm not too interested in
> diving into ext2 locking to work out exactly what is racing and how to
> fix it properly. I suspect it would be most productive to wire up some
> ioctls right into the block allocator/lookup and code up a userspace
> tester for it that could probably stress it a lot harder than kernel
> writeout can.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists