Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix XFS oops due to dirty pages without buffers on s390

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

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?

One thing that changed is that the zero_user_segment for the remaining bytes between
i_size and the end of the page has been moved to block_write_full_page_endio, see
git commit eebd2aa355692afa. That changed the timing of the race window in regard
to map/unmap of the page by user space. And yes XFS is in use on s390.

February 2008: I think we have different ideas of "recently" ;)

quoted

quoted

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...

Yes, it is an interesting idea. I really like the part that we'll use less storage
key operations, as these are freaking expensive.

As I said to Mel and will repeat to Jan, though an optimization would
be nice, I don't think we should necessarily mix it with the bugfix.

quoted

quoted

CC: Martin Schwidefsky <redacted>

which I'd very much like Martin's opinion on...

Until you pointed out the short-comings of the patch I really liked it ..

quoted

quoted

---
 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.

Hmm, who guarantees that page_mkclean won't be used for SwapCache in the
future? At least we should add a comment there.

I set out to do so, to add a comment there; but honestly, it's a strange
place for such a comment when there's no longer even the code to comment
upon.  And page_mkclean_file(), called in the line above, already says
BUG_ON(PageAnon(page)), so it would soon fire if we ever make a change
that sends PageSwapCache pages this way.  It is possible that one day we
shall want to send tmpfs and swapcache down this route, I'm not ruling
that out; but then we shall have to extend page_mkclean(), yes.

The patch relies on the software dirty bit tracking for file backed pages,
if dirty bit tracking is not done for tmpfs and ramfs we are borked.
 

quoted

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.

No, the clear_highpage() will set the dirty bit in the storage key but
the SetPageUptodate will clear the complete storage key including the
dirty bit.

Ah, thank you Martin, that clears that up...

quoted

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!

... so I should not hurt your performance with a change of that kind.

I am seriously tempted to switch to pure software dirty bits by using
page protection for writable but clean pages. The worry is the number of
additional protection faults we would get. But as we do software dirty
bit tracking for the most part anyway this might not be as bad as it
used to be.

That's exactly the same reason why tmpfs opts out of dirty tracking, fear
of unnecessary extra faults.  Anomalous as s390 is here, tmpfs is being
anomalous too, and I'd be a hypocrite to push for you to make that change.

quoted

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.

That is covered by the SetPageUptodate() in migrate_page_copy().,> 

I don't think so: that makes sure that the newpage is not marked
dirty in storage key just because of the copy_highpage to it; but
I see nothing to mark the newpage dirty in storage key when the
old page was dirty there.

Hugh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>