[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dglxbwe2i5ubofefdxwo5jvyhdfjov37z5jzc5guedhe4dl6ia@pmkjkec3isb4>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 15:04:50 +0100
From: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ziy@...dia.com, matthew.brost@...el.com, joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
rakie.kim@...com, gourry@...rry.net, ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
apopple@...dia.com, clameter@....com, kravetz@...ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, max.byungchul.park@...il.com, kernel_team@...ynix.com,
harry.yoo@...cle.com, gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com, yeoreum.yun@....com,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com, ysk@...lloc.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/migrate: make sure folio_unlock() before
folio_wait_writeback()
(Adding ext4 list to CC)
On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:38:59PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > To simplify the scenario:
> >
>
> Just curious, where is the __folio_start_writeback() to complete the
> picture?
>
> > context X (wq worker) context Y (process context)
> >
> > migrate_pages_batch()
> > ext4_end_io_end() ...
> > ... migrate_folio_unmap()
> > ext4_get_inode_loc() ...
> > ... folio_lock() // hold the folio lock
> > bdev_getblk() ...
> > ... folio_wait_writeback() // wait forever
> > __find_get_block_slow()
> > ... ...
> > folio_lock() // wait forever
> > folio_unlock() migrate_folio_undo_src()
> > ...
> > ... folio_unlock() // never reachable
> > ext4_finish_bio()
> > ...
> > folio_end_writeback() // never reachable
> >
>
> But aren't you implying that it should from this point on be disallowed to
> call folio_wait_writeback() with the folio lock held? That sounds ... a bit
> wrong.
>
> Note that it is currently explicitly allowed: folio_wait_writeback()
> documents "If the folio is not locked, writeback may start again after
> writeback has finished.". So there is no way to prevent writeback from
> immediately starting again.
>
> In particular, wouldn't we have to fixup other callsites to make this
> consistent and then VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() assert that in folio_wait_writeback()?
>
> Of course, as we've never seen this deadlock before in practice, I do wonder
> if something else prevents it?
As far as I can tell, the folio under writeback and the folio that
__find_get_block() finds will _never_ be the same. ext4_end_io_end() is
called for pages in an inode's address_space, and bdev_getblk() is called for
metadata blocks in block cache. Having an actual deadlock here would mean
that the folio is somehow both in an inode's address_space, and in the block
cache, I think? Also, AFAIK there is no way a folio can be removed from the
page cache while under writeback.
In any case, I added linux-ext4 so they can tell me how right/wrong I am.
--
Pedro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists