Message-ID: <20121009162107.GE15790@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:21:07 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix XFS oops due to dirty pages without buffers on
 s390

On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
> > dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page, page_remove_rmap()
> > finds the dirty bit and calls set_page_dirty().
> > 
> > Dirtying of a page which shouldn't be dirty can cause all sorts of problems to
> > filesystems. The bug we observed in practice is that buffers from the page get
> > freed, so when the page gets later marked as dirty and writeback writes it, XFS
> > crashes due to an assertion BUG_ON(!PagePrivate(page)) in page_buffers() called
> > from xfs_count_page_state().
> 
> What changed recently?  Was XFS hardly used on s390 until now?
  The problem was originally hit on SLE11-SP2 which is 3.0 based after
migration of our s390 build machines from SLE11-SP1 (2.6.32 based). I think
XFS just started to be more peevish about what pages it gets between these
two releases ;) (e.g. ext3 or ext4 just says "oh, well" and fixes things
up).

> > Similar problem can also happen when zero_user_segment() call from
> > xfs_vm_writepage() (or block_write_full_page() for that matter) set the
> > hardware dirty bit during writeback, later buffers get freed, and then page
> > unmapped.
> > 
> > Fix the issue by ignoring s390 HW dirty bit for page cache pages in
> > page_mkclean() and page_remove_rmap(). This is safe because when a page gets
> > marked as writeable in PTE it is also marked dirty in do_wp_page() or
> > do_page_fault(). When the dirty bit is cleared by clear_page_dirty_for_io(),
> > the page gets writeprotected in page_mkclean(). So pagecache page is writeable
> > if and only if it is dirty.
> 
> Very interesting patch...
  Originally, I even wanted to rip out pte dirty bit handling for shared
file pages but in the end that seemed too bold and unnecessary for my
problem ;)

> > CC: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> but I think it's wrong.
  Thanks for having a look.

> > ---
> >  mm/rmap.c |   16 ++++++++++++++--
> >  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index 0f3b7cd..6ce8ddb 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -973,7 +973,15 @@ int page_mkclean(struct page *page)
> >  		struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
> >  		if (mapping) {
> >  			ret = page_mkclean_file(mapping, page);
> > -			if (page_test_and_clear_dirty(page_to_pfn(page), 1))
> > +			/*
> > +			 * We ignore dirty bit for pagecache pages. It is safe
> > +			 * as page is marked dirty iff it is writeable (page is
> > +			 * marked as dirty when it is made writeable and
> > +			 * clear_page_dirty_for_io() writeprotects the page
> > +			 * again).
> > +			 */
> > +			if (PageSwapCache(page) &&
> > +			    page_test_and_clear_dirty(page_to_pfn(page), 1))
> >  				ret = 1;
> 
> This part you could cut out: page_mkclean() is not used on SwapCache pages.
> I believe you are safe to remove the page_test_and_clear_dirty() from here.
  OK, will do.

> >  		}
> >  	}
> > @@ -1183,8 +1191,12 @@ void page_remove_rmap(struct page *page)
> >  	 * this if the page is anon, so about to be freed; but perhaps
> >  	 * not if it's in swapcache - there might be another pte slot
> >  	 * containing the swap entry, but page not yet written to swap.
> > +	 * For pagecache pages, we don't care about dirty bit in storage
> > +	 * key because the page is writeable iff it is dirty (page is marked
> > +	 * as dirty when it is made writeable and clear_page_dirty_for_io()
> > +	 * writeprotects the page again).
> >  	 */
> > -	if ((!anon || PageSwapCache(page)) &&
> > +	if (PageSwapCache(page) &&
> >  	    page_test_and_clear_dirty(page_to_pfn(page), 1))
> >  		set_page_dirty(page);
> 
> But here's where I think the problem is.  You're assuming that all
> filesystems go the same mapping_cap_account_writeback_dirty() (yeah,
> there's no such function, just a confusing maze of three) route as XFS.
> 
> But filesystems like tmpfs and ramfs (perhaps they're the only two
> that matter here) don't participate in that, and wait for an mmap'ed
> page to be seen modified by the user (usually via pte_dirty, but that's
> a no-op on s390) before page is marked dirty; and page reclaim throws
> away undirtied pages.
  I admit I haven't thought of tmpfs and similar. After some discussion Mel
pointed me to the code in mmap which makes a difference. So if I get it
right, the difference which causes us problems is that on tmpfs we map the
page writeably even during read-only fault. OK, then if I make the above
code in page_remove_rmap():
	if ((PageSwapCache(page) ||
	     (!anon && !mapping_cap_account_dirty(page->mapping))) &&
	    page_test_and_clear_dirty(page_to_pfn(page), 1))
		set_page_dirty(page);

  Things should be ok (modulo the ugliness of this condition), right?

> 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.
> 
> 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.
  Yes, except as Martin notes, SetPageUptodate() clears them again so that
doesn't work for us.

> 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!
  If we want to get rid of page_test_and_clear_dirty() completely (and a
hack in SetPageUptodate()) it should be possible. But we would have to
change mmap to map pages read-only for read-only faults of tmpfs pages at
least on s390 and then somehow fix the SwapCache handling...

> 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.
  I'd think so but I'll let Martin comment on this.

								Honza
--
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