linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:LINE!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgD9GK5CeHopYmRHoYS9cNuCmDMsc=+MbM_KgJ0KB+=ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:04:21 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+2fc0712f8f8b8b8fa0ef@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:LINE!

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I took your "way to go" statement as an ack, and made it all be commit
> c2407cf7d22d ("mm: make wait_on_page_writeback() wait for multiple
> pending writebacks").

Oh, and Michael Larabel (of phoronix) reports that that one-liner does
something bad to a few PostgreSQL tests, on the order of 5-10%
regression on some machines (but apparently not others).

I suspect that's a sign of instability in the benchmark numbers, but
it probably also means that we have some silly condition where
multiple threads want to clean the same page.

I sent him a patch to try if it ends up being better to just not wake
things up early at all (instead of the "if" -> "while") conversion.
That trivial patch appended here in case anybody has comments.

Just the fact that that one-liner made a performance impact makes me
go "hmm", though. Michael didn't see the BUG_ON(), so it's presumably
some _other_ user of wait_on_page_writeback() than the
write_cache_pages() one that causes issues.

Anybody got any suspicions? Honestly, when working on the page wait
queues, I was working under the assumption that it's really just the
page lock that truly matters.

I'm thinking things like __filemap_fdatawait_range(), which doesn't
hold the page lock at all, so it's all kinds of non-serialized, and
could now be waiting for any number of IO's ro complete..

Oh well. This email doesn't really have a point, it's more of a
heads-up that that "wait to see one or multiple writebacks" thing
seems to matter more than I would have expected for some loads..

            Linus

Download attachment "patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (1292 bytes)