Message-ID: <56E8192B.5030008@nod.at>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:16:11 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	Alexander Kaplan <alex@...tthing.co>
Subject: Page migration issue with UBIFS

Hi!

We're facing this issue from 2014 on UBIFS:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg79941.html

So sum up:
UBIFS does not allow pages directly marked as dirty. It want's everyone to do it via UBIFS's
->wirte_end() and ->page_mkwirte() functions.
This assumption *seems* to be violated by CMA which migrates pages.
UBIFS enforces this because it has to account free space on the flash,
in UBIFS speak "budget", for details please see fs/ubifs/file.c.

As in the report from 2014 the page is writable but not dirty.
The kernel has this debug patch applied:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg80471.html
But our kernel is based on v4.4 and does *not* use proprietary modules.

[  213.450000] page:debe03c0 count:3 mapcount:1 mapping:dce4b5fc index:0x2f
[  213.460000] flags: 0x9(locked|uptodate)
[  213.460000] page dumped because: try_to_unmap_one
[  213.470000] pte_write: 1
[  213.480000] UBIFS assert failed in ubifs_set_page_dirty at 1451 (pid 436)
[  213.490000] CPU: 0 PID: 436 Comm: drm-stress-test Not tainted 4.4.4-00176-geaa802524636-dirty #1008
[  213.490000] Hardware name: Allwinner sun4i/sun5i Families
[  213.490000] [<c0015e70>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0012cdc>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
[  213.490000] [<c0012cdc>] (show_stack) from [<c02ad834>] (dump_stack+0x8c/0xa0)
[  213.490000] [<c02ad834>] (dump_stack) from [<c0236ee8>] (ubifs_set_page_dirty+0x44/0x50)
[  213.490000] [<c0236ee8>] (ubifs_set_page_dirty) from [<c00fa0bc>] (try_to_unmap_one+0x10c/0x3a8)
[  213.490000] [<c00fa0bc>] (try_to_unmap_one) from [<c00fadb4>] (rmap_walk+0xb4/0x290)
[  213.490000] [<c00fadb4>] (rmap_walk) from [<c00fb1bc>] (try_to_unmap+0x64/0x80)
[  213.490000] [<c00fb1bc>] (try_to_unmap) from [<c010dc28>] (migrate_pages+0x328/0x7a0)
[  213.490000] [<c010dc28>] (migrate_pages) from [<c00d0cb0>] (alloc_contig_range+0x168/0x2f4)
[  213.490000] [<c00d0cb0>] (alloc_contig_range) from [<c010ec00>] (cma_alloc+0x170/0x2c0)
[  213.490000] [<c010ec00>] (cma_alloc) from [<c001a958>] (__alloc_from_contiguous+0x38/0xd8)
[  213.490000] [<c001a958>] (__alloc_from_contiguous) from [<c001ad44>] (__dma_alloc+0x23c/0x274)
[  213.490000] [<c001ad44>] (__dma_alloc) from [<c001ae08>] (arm_dma_alloc+0x54/0x5c)
[  213.490000] [<c001ae08>] (arm_dma_alloc) from [<c035cecc>] (drm_gem_cma_create+0xb8/0xf0)
[  213.490000] [<c035cecc>] (drm_gem_cma_create) from [<c035cf20>] (drm_gem_cma_create_with_handle+0x1c/0xe8)
[  213.490000] [<c035cf20>] (drm_gem_cma_create_with_handle) from [<c035d088>] (drm_gem_cma_dumb_create+0x3c/0x48)
[  213.490000] [<c035d088>] (drm_gem_cma_dumb_create) from [<c0341ed8>] (drm_ioctl+0x12c/0x444)
[  213.490000] [<c0341ed8>] (drm_ioctl) from [<c0121adc>] (do_vfs_ioctl+0x3f4/0x614)
[  213.490000] [<c0121adc>] (do_vfs_ioctl) from [<c0121d30>] (SyS_ioctl+0x34/0x5c)
[  213.490000] [<c0121d30>] (SyS_ioctl) from [<c000f2c0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x34)

The full kernellog can be found here:
http://code.bulix.org/ysuo9x-93716?raw

So, let me repeat Artem's question from 2014:
> Now the question is: is it UBIFS which has incorrect assumptions, or this is the
> Linux MM which is not doing the right thing? I do not know the answer, let's see
> if the MM list may give us a clue.

Thanks,
//richard

Powered by blists - more mailing lists